Disposed

Suma P.S v. K.S.R.T.C

Kerala HC29 Jun 2016WP(C)/15177/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by lady conductors of KSRTC seeking regularisation of their services with effect from 1992. The Court directed the Government to consider the petitioners' representation for regularisation with retroactive effect after an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Government to consider the petitioners representation for regularisation with effect from initial appointment after an opportunity of hearing within three months.

Suma P.S Vs K.S.R.T.C — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/13TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15177 of 2011 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

1. SUMA P.S., AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.K.GOPI, WORKING AS CONDUCTOR GRADE I, THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT 'NEERANJANAM', N.V.N.70, N.V. NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

2. S.SHEELA, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.M.B.SHAJI, WORKING AS CONDUCTOR GRADE I, THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VIKHAS BHAVAN UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

3. SUSAN J., WORKING AS CONDUCTOR GRADE I, THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CITY UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

4. P.A.LISSY, WORKING AS CONDUCTOR GRADE I, THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, VIKHAS BHAVAN UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR BY ADVS.SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI

¶12

SMT.SMITHA GEORGE

¶13

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶14

1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

...2/-

¶16

WP(C).No. 15177 of 2011 (V) -2-

¶17

2. THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶18

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SC SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JIBU P. THOMAS

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶22

W.P(C) No.15177 of 2011-V

¶23

Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2016

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed by the first batch of Lady Conductors of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (`KSRTC' for short), aggrieved by the refusal to give effect to their regularisation from the date of their initial appointment.

¶26

The petitioners claim that they belong to first batch of Lady Conductors in KSRTC. Their appointments were made on the basis of the assurance given by the legislative committee which conducted a separate process of selection for appointment to the post of Lady Conductors in the year 1992 after inviting applications through various employment exchanges in the State and subjecting them to a process of selection including written test and interview. On being successful in the process of selection, they were given training and thereafter they were appointed as per orders like Ext.P1. In Ext.P1 appointment order dated 04.07.1992 issued to the petitioners, it was stated as, “--------- ----- ----- selected for the post of Daily Wages Lady

¶27

W.P(C) No.15177 of 2011-V 2

¶28

Conductor in the KSRTC is appointed as Daily Wage Lady Conductor.” The appointment was for a period of 3 years on contract basis, subject to rules and regulations in force under the KSRTC and those the Corporation make in future relating to regulations. Their daily wages was fixed @ 1/26^th of the minimum in the scale of pay for the lowest grade of conductor along with dearness allowance admissible to that pay. It was also stated that, the appointment would be terminated without notice on expiry of the vacancy/termination of contract in which they are posted. They were asked to execute an indemnity bond in a stamped paper worth Rs.15/- with two sureties. As per Ext.P2 the petitioners were admitted to duty as per order dated 4.7.1992.

¶29

The petitioners submit that ever since their appointment they have been requesting for regularisation of their services and it was finally by Ext.P3 order dt.23.2.2001 that the Government issued orders regularising them as Conductors, but only with effect from the date of the order. Ext.P3 order refers to the recommendations made by the Managing Director of the KSRTC stating that the six lady conductors referred to therein were appointed by a committee constituted by the

¶30

W.P(C) No.15177 of 2011-V 3

¶31

Government after conducting written test and interview and also observing the guidelines of communal reservation. It is also stated that, the Director Board of KSRTC in its meeting held on 22.10.1998 decided to take up the absorption of the 6 lady conductors with the Government and requested to take steps for their regularisation. Even though the matter was referred to the Public Service Commission (`PSC' for short), the PSC objected to the same and the Government after overruling the advice of the PSC decided to regularise their service considering the special nature of duties of the post and their long service pointing out that the existing lady conductors deserve consideration for regularisation. The petitioners have produced the paper reports at the time of their initial appointment when their induction was celebrated by all concerned as a milestone in achieving women empowerment.

¶32

Aggrieved by the refusal to regularise them with effect from their initial date of appointment, the petitioners submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Government which was duly recommended by the Managing Director of KSRTC as per Ext.P6 letter. The petitioners rely on Ext.P6(a) order issued on 28.1.2011 by which certain empanelled conductors who

¶33

W.P(C) No.15177 of 2011-V 4

¶34

rendered daily wage services for the period from 18.3.1993 to 19.04.1996 were regularised with effect from the date of their joining duty as daily wage conductors/empanelled conductors on the strength of valid appointment orders. Since there was no action on their request even after Ext.P6(a) order, the petitioners submitted Ext.P7 representation before the Managing Director on 25.2.2011 and thereafter approached this Court filing this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶35

“i) To declare that the denial of service rendered by the petitioners from the date of appointment treating it as contract service to be counted along with the regular service and denying the benefits accruing there from, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the `KSRTC' to treat the entire service rendered by the petitioners from the year 1992 for all purposes including pension, grant of terminal benefits, promotion, etc. and pass orders accordingly. iii) To call for the records relating to the order stated to have been passed by the government denying the rights to the petitioners and not communicated to them, and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶37

iv) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶38

In effect the petitioners seek regularisation with effect from the date of their initial appointment by granting them all benefits as in the case of regular employees.

¶39

The Government filed a counter affidavit opposing the

¶40

¶41

W.P(C) No.15177 of 2011-V

¶42

prayers on the ground that appointment of the petitioners was only on contract basis and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], the claim for regularisation cannot be accepted. According to the Government, irregular appointments cannot be regularised and the normal method of appointment is through Public Service Commission. Regarding the order Ext.P6(a) relating to the regularisation of the daily wage conductors it is stated that, those conductors were included in the rank list published on 18.05.1992 by the PSC and since they were given appointment as empanelled conductors on the basis of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in O.P No.12587/1992 and since their appointment was made from the rank list, they could not be given regular appointment at that time due to the financial crisis in the KSRTC. They were later advised by the PSC against regular vacancies on fresh advice and were appointed on regular basis on 20.04.1996. It is therefore stated that the petitioners' case is entirely different from them.

¶43

Smt.Thushara, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC, appearing for the 1^st respondent, stoutly opposed the prayers sought in the Writ Petition pointing out that the

¶44

W.P(C) No.15177 of 2011-V 6

¶45

petitioners, who were appointed on contract basis and regularised as per Ext.P3 Government Order, cannot seek any further benefit, since the Government has already granted whatever is due to them and at the time of initial appointment itself they were told that their appointments were purely temporary and they were liable to be terminated from service at any time. According to her any revision in date of regularisation of the petitioners will violate the fundamental right of other conductors and there cannot be any empowerment contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶46

I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Laila.T.M. v. State of Kerala [ILR 2014 (2) 841]. This Court was considering the case of temporarily appointed Leprosy Inspectors through the employment exchanges, who were not granted regular appointment from the date of their initial appointment. Taking note of the fact that their appointment was in connection with the National Leprosy Eradication Program

¶48

W.P(C) No.15177 of 2011-V 7

¶49

implemented by the Government for the first time in 1954-55 when the Government resorted to appointment through employment exchange, when there was no live list of candidates with the PSC, it was held that their appointments were liable to be treated as regular from initial date of appointment. In view of the purpose for which their appointments were made, the denial of benefits for the services rendered by them till the date of regularisation and the refusal on the part of the Government not to treat the past service for service benefits, were held unsustainable. This Court took note of the fact that their appointments were made after subjecting them to a training for a period of 6 months. Taking into consideration of the services they rendered for the purpose of eradication of leprosy in the country, this Court held that the refusal to count their services for any service benefits was, in effect, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 and therefore directed to regularise their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment and it was also directed to count their provisional service for all service benefits including pension.

¶50

The learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Richa Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh

¶51

W.P(C) No.15177 of 2011-V 8

¶52

[(2016) 4 SCC 179], especially paragraphs 25 to 28 and 33. It was a case where the age relaxation was not specifically provided as prescribed in M.P Civil Services (Special Provisions for appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 when Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 were issued. The Court giving emphasis to the general freedom and equality and also in the interest of economic empowerment of women held as follows:

¶53

“25. xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx In reality, however, they have yet to go a long way to achieve this constitutional status. It is now realised that real empowerment would be achieved by women, which would lead to their well-being facilitating enjoyment of rights guaranteed to them, only if there is an economic empowerment of women is well. Till sometime back, the focus was to achieve better treatment for women and for this reason, the concentration was mainly on the well-being of women. Now the focus is shifted to economic empowerment. Such objectives have gradually evolved or broadened to include the active role of women when it comes to development as well. No longer the passive recipients of welfare-enhancing help, women are increasingly seen, by men as well as women as active agents of change: xxxxxx

¶54

xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx

¶55

xxxx xxxx xxx xxx This bidirectional relationship is explained by Prof. Amartya Sen by propounding a theory that in one direction, development alone can play a major role in driving down an equality between men and women; in another direction, continuing discrimination against women can hinder development. In this scenario, empowerment can accelerate development. xxxxxx It is, for this purpose, there is much emphasis on women empowerment (as it leads to economic development) by the United Nations, World Bank and other such bodies.

¶56

xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

¶57

Economic development, however, is not enough to bring about complete equality between men and women. Policy action is still necessary to achieve equality between genders. Such policy action would be unambiguously justified if empowerment of

¶58

W.P(C) No.15177 of 2011-V 9

¶59

women also stimulates further development, starting a virtuous cycle. Empowerment of women, thus, is perceived as equipping them to be economically independent, self-reliant, with positive esteem to enable them to face any situation and they should be able to participate in the development activities .”

¶60

It is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that, keeping in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court the petitioners deserve regularisation with effect from the date of their initial appointment.

¶61

The normal method of appointment to the post of Conductors is by recruitment through PSC. There cannot be any dispute that the appointment of lady conductors as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders were made as a special case in order to achieve women empowerment with the object of attracting women to KSRTC to take up employment as lady conductors, when the entire wing of conductors was exclusively occupied by the male conductors. Earlier it is also stated that such appointments were made assuring them that their appointments would be regular for all purposes.

¶62

It is seen that the Government has not considered the representation submitted by the petitioners and the same is pending before it. It is upto the Government, who celebrated the entry of women in KSRTC as conductors as a step towards

¶63

W.P(C) No.15177 of 2011-V 10

¶64

women empowerment, to consider the request of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders on it to undo the injustice done to the petitioners, if necessary by relaxing the rules.

¶65

In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Government to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 representation, in the light of the observations of this Court and the Apex Court referred to above, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶68

rtr/

Suma P.S v. K.S.R.T.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suma P.S v. K.S.R.T.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Archana S.Vasudev Vs Tahsildar, Kunnathoor Taluk

Rosamma Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

M.Savithri Vs State Bank of Travancore

Muhammed Ashraff Vs the Forest Range Officer

M/S.Aluminium Industries Ltd. Vs the Dist. Labour Officer

Shakkeela & Another Vs the State of Kerala & Others