Disposed

Rajan Sheriff I v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC23 May 2014WP(C)/11777/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an empanelled KSRTC driver, sought regularisation by completing 10 years of service but was denied due to alleged inadequate duty records. Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within two months after affording a personal hearing if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be given opportunity of personal hearing; 2nd respondent to consider the representation and decide on regularisation claim within two months.

Rajan Sheriff I Vs Kerala State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2014/2ND JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 11777 of 2014 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RAJAN SHERIFF. I, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.ISMAIL RAWTHER, CHIRAKONIL VEEDU, PAZHAKULAM P.O. ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-691527.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT [A] DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ABDUL SHUKOOR R1 & R2 BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 11777 of 2014 (V)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1: COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.3,000/- DATED 22.06.1996.

¶19

P2: COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY ATO, ADOOR DT.05.03.2014.

¶20

P3: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS LETTER NO.74/A3/2013/TRANS. DT.01.02.2013.

¶21

P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE KERALA CHIEF MINISTER'S MASS CONTACT PROGRAMME 2013 DT. NIL.

¶22

P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTEWD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.02.02.2014.

¶23

P6: COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN CHARGE OF RCC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.13.02.2014.

¶24

P7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, GENERAL HOSPITAL, ADOOR DT.12.02.2014.

¶25

P8: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATGE ISSUED BY DR.SANTHOSH.K. TO THE PETITIONER DT.28.11.2003.

¶26

P9: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY JOSCO HOSPITAL (P) LIMITED, PANDALAM TO THE PETITIONER DT.29.03.2003.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P. A. TO JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶32

W.P.(C). No. 11777 of 2014

¶33

Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2014

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner is an empanelled Driver working in the 1^st respondent Corporation since the year 1996 onwards. He sought regularisation in service on the basis of order issued by the State Government, G.O.(MS) No.78/2011/Tran. dated 22.12.2011, since he had completed 10 years of service as on 21.12.2011. But his claim for regularisation was not considered. On enquiry the petitioner was informed that he was not possessing the requisite qualification of 120 duties per year with respect to 10 years experience. According to the petitioner the stand taken by respondents 1 and 2 is not true and correct. The petitioner had produced Ext.P2 details of attendance, which will reveal that the petitioner has got more than 10 years service with 120 duties per year. Under such circumstances the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 2^nd respondent requesting to consider his claim for regularisation. Since

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 11777 of 2014

¶37

-2-

¶38

no action was taken on the basis of the said representation, this writ petition is filed.

¶39

Heard; standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2. Considering pendency of Ext.P5, interest of justice will be achieved by directing an early consideration of the same.

¶40

Therefore this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P5 and to take an appropriate decision on the claim for regularisation, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, if necessary. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶42

/true copy/

¶43

P. A. to Judge

¶44

Rajan Sheriff I v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Sheriff I v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiju Vs Dr K P Sreekumar

Justin K.J Vs Smijesh V.M

Daisy Cherian Vs District Collector

G.Gopalaikrishna Pillai Vs K.S.R.T.C.

Joy Ouseph Vs the Asst. Executive Engineer

The Kerala State Electricity Board Vs the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum