Allowed

Rafi v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC18 Feb 2016WP(C)/38236/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the termination of an adhoc conductor's empanelment. The Court held that mere participation in an authority meeting does not justify termination in the absence of misconduct or absenteeism. The relevant memorandum was quashed, restoring the petitioner's status.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 memorandum quashed; petitioner clarified as eligible to continue as empanelled conductor.

Rafi Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/29TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 38236 of 2015 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RAFI AGED 35 YEARS S/O ABDUL SAMAD, HASEENA MANZIL, VATTAKARIKKAKAM PANCODE, NEDUMANGAD

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-691 001

¶11

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, -691 001

¶12

3. THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, -691 001

¶13

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

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1802-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 38236 of 2015 (D)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------

¶18

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DT. 1/12/07 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DT. 23/9/14

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------NIL

¶20

TRUE COPY

¶21

SKS P.A TO JUDGE

¶22

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶23

¶24

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The mere fact that the petitioner participated in a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority is no ground to disengage the petitioner as an empanelled conductor. An empanelled conductor cannot be terminated from service in a light-hearted fashion as held in Mohanan vs. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (2015 (3) KLT 18). There is no allegation that there was misdemeanor in service by the petitioner or that he absented himself from duty.

¶27

The petitioner is not on permanent employment and after all has been enlisted in the panel of adhoc conductors. The petitioner has every right to participate in such meetings or deliberate in the proceedings for permit. That by itself cannot justify the unceremonious removal of the petitioner from the list of empanelled conductor.

¶28

Ext.P2 memorandum is quashed. The writ petition is allowed clarifying that the petitioner can continue as an empanelled conductor if otherwise eligible. No costs.

¶29

V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶30

sks

Rafi v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafi v. the 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asya Vs the Secretary, Shornur Municipality

Shamsudheen A.K Vs Bijumon Jacob

All India BSNL Casual Workers Union Vs P.K.Lukas, Regional Labour Commr. (Central), Tvm

Appukuttan K Vs Marykutty IAS

Aswini.K.S Vs the Mahatma Gandhi Unniversity

Lijo Vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority