Dismissed

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. P.a.Abdul Rasheed

Kerala HC14 Oct 2016RP/822/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge bench disposed of a review petition filed by KSRTC drivers contesting a circular directing them to drive specific Volvo buses based on training seniority rather than depot seniority. The court held the matter was already final based on prior judgments and dismissed the review.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was found to fail as no case of error or legal infirmity was made out, and the review petitioners were not at liberty to seek review.

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 822 of 2016 () IN WP(C).25230/2016

¶6

WP(C) 25230/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

¶9

2. THE SPECIAL OFFICER JNNURM PROJECT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

¶10

3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 035.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶13

1. P.A.ABDUL RASHEED PAPPANAYIL, NETTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (DRIVER ERNAKULAM DEPOT)

¶14

2. M.I.ALIYAR

¶15

MURIYANKARA HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, DRIVER, ERNAKULAM DEPOT.

¶16

3. P.B.DILEEPKUMAR PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, THENGODE P.O., NAVODAYA JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030, (DRIVER, ERNAKULAM DEPOT).

¶17

R1 to 3 BY SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rmm

¶20

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶21

R.P.No.822 of 2016

¶22

¶23

W.P.(C) No.25230 of 2016

¶24

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2016

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Respondents in the writ petition are the review petitioners. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the review petitioners to abide by the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, directing the review petitioners to draw a list of drivers to drive Volvo buses in accordance with seniority secured by them as per the training undergone.

¶27

This review petition is filed by the petitioners, contending that the circular dated 18.7.2016 was a draft of a circular issued subsequently, and it was not numbered and does not contain the signature of the issuing authority. The final circular was numbered and signed by the first review petitioner herein. After issuing

¶28

R.P.No.822 of 2016 in 2 W.P.(C) No.25230 of 2016

¶29

circular dated 22.4.2009 which is the subject matter of WP(C) No.6/2012 and connected cases, fresh allotment of low floor air-conditioned buses were made to various districts. Several drivers were given training to drive the said buses. While allotting duty to the drivers based on the training seniority, and not based on depot wise seniority, has developed discontent among senior drivers, who got training later in point of time. This amounts to deviation of State wide practice of assigning duty based on depot wise seniority. It is also noticed that these drivers who got training in low floor air-conditioned buses refused to drive other type of buses in the event of cancellation of air-conditioned Volvo buses, taking the stand, they are a special category. This has resulted in administrative difficulties to the Corporation. It was under the circumstances, the Corporation has decided to withdraw the circular dated 22.04.2009 and issued fresh circular dated 10.08.2016 in substitution thereof. While issuing the circular it was omitted to mention that the

¶30

R.P.No.822 of 2016 in 3 W.P.(C) No.25230 of 2016

¶31

circular is not applicable to the respondents herein and the petitioners in the connected writ petitions, as the writ petitions filed by them were finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment. Inter-parte judgment has become final and no appeal was preferred against these judgments. It is also stated that the respondents cannot seek a relief which is applicable to other drivers driving JNNURM Volvo buses who are not aggrieved by the depot wise seniority. However, direction has been given to the review petitioners to engage drivers in the low floor air-conditioned buses under the JNNURM project on priority basis on the date of training of such drivers, thereby extending the benefit of the judgment to all the drivers who have not aggrieved by the circular and not made parties to the writ petition. It is in this background, seeking to review the judgment rendered by me, this review petition is filed.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners

¶33

and learned counsel appearing for the respondents,

¶34

R.P.No.822 of 2016 in 4 W.P.(C) No.25230 of 2016

¶35

perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth.

¶36

So far as the judgment under review is

¶37

concerned, the same was rendered directing the review petitioners to implement Ext.P1 judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Even though, the review petitioners have not preferred any appeal against the said judgment, third parties have sought leave to file appeal, and this Court passed Ext.P2 order dismissing the review petition submitted by the third parties, in which, categoric findings are rendered, justifying the stand adopted by the learned Single Judge in Ext.P1 judgment.

¶38

Therefore, in my considered opinion, consequent to Exts.P1 and P2, the subject matter with respect to drawing a list of Volvo drivers in accordance with the training undergone by them has become final. It goes without saying directions were issued by the learned Single Judge, and in the judgment under review direction issued by me is only to comply with the directions

¶39

R.P.No.822 of 2016 in 5 W.P.(C) No.25230 of 2016

¶40

contained in Ext.P1 judgment. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion, without any change in circumstances pertaining to Ext.P1 judgment rendered by this Court, the review petitioners are not at liberty to seek review of the judgment rendered by me.

¶41

Taking into account the respective submissions made across the Bar and considering the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion, review petitioners have not made out any case of error apparent on the face of the record or other legal infirmities, warranting exercise of power of review. Accordingly review fails and it is dismissed.

¶42

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶43

// True copy //

¶44

P.A. To Judge

¶45

rmm/15/10/2016

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. P.a.Abdul Rasheed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. P.a.Abdul Rasheed

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

K.K.Nazar Vs Sadique Ali

K.P.Paul Vs S.M.Vijayanand

Sunena Chandran Vs State of Kerala

N.K. Kuriakose Vs M.G. Ramachandran

Achilles A.B. Vs State of Kerala

John Thomas @ Santhosh Vs the State of Kerala