Dismissed

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. P.J.Abraham

Kerala HC9 Nov 2018WA/2067/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra-court appeal by KSRTC challenging a direction to pay 6% interest on delayed terminal benefits to a retiring bus driver. The High Court rejected the appeal, holding the appellants could not blame the retiree for service book irregularities and affirming the interest rate was not exorbitant.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; original direction to pay arrears and 6% interest affirmed.

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

FRIDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

WA.No. 2067 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22967/2018 of HIGHCOURT

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2 THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PONKUNNAM DEPOT, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , 686506 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SMT.PARVATHY KOTTOL SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.)

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 P.J.ABRAHAM RETIRED DRIVER, KSRTC, PONKUNNAM DEPOT, RESIDING AT PADIVATHICKAL HOUSE, RPC P. O, VANDAN PATHAL, MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN-683513

¶13

WA.No. 2067 of 2018

¶14

¶15

2 DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY, THIRUVANANTHAPURM 695014,

¶16

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶17

BY SRI K.P RAJEEVAN FOR RESPONDENTS AND GP- SRI ANTONY MUKKATH.

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WA.No. 2067 of 2018

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶23

The judgment dated 09.08.2018 in W.P.(C).No.

¶24

22967/2018 is under challenge, only to a limited

¶25

extent in this intra-court appeal. The appellants are aggrieved only by the direction thereunder, for payment of interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of retirement till payment. The writ petitioner is a retiree from the service of the Kerala State

¶26

Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). He retired from its service on 31.08.2016, while working as a Driver in Ponkunnam Depot. It is raising grievance against the delay in the matter of disbursement of terminal benefits that the writ petitioner/the respondent herein filed the above mentioned writ petition. The respondents therein/the appellants resisted the claims and contentions, but at the same time did not dispute its liability to pay the pension. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellants/respondents

¶27

WA.No. 2067 of 2018

¶28

¶29

1&2 therein they attempted to establish that the petitioner had also contributed to the delay in disbursement of terminal benefits. They would contend that various irregularities crept in the Service Book of the writ petitioner and owing to the delay in correcting such irregularities, provisional pension was granted to him on 14.06.2017. Thereafter, the pay revision cell granted approval for disbursement of terminal benefits to him on 09.03.2018. The learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions and ultimately found that the petitioner, who retired from the service of KSRTC on 31.08.2016, is yet to

¶30

receive the terminal benefits. It is in the said circumstances that the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents therein/ appellants herein to disburse arrears of pension and other terminal benefits payable to the

¶31

petitioner/respondent herein together with interest at the aforesaid rate.

¶32

We have heard the learned counsel appearing

¶33

for the appellants.

¶34

WA.No. 2067 of 2018

¶35

¶36

As noticed herein before, the grievance of

¶37

the appellant is only with respect to that part of the judgment, whereby, the learned Single Judge directed for payment of interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of retirement till actual payment of benefits. Therefore, the short question is whether the said direction invites interference. As noticed herein-before the contention of the appellants is that it is the irregularities crept in the service book that caused the delay. From the pleadings of the appellants in their counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, nothing is discernible as to what exactly is the contribution of the writ petitioner to the delay due to such irregularities. If at all some irregularities had actually crept in, as alleged by the appellant, in the Service Book of the writ petitioner, we are at a loss to understand as to how the appellants herein could blame the petitioner for such irregularities. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that, entries in the Service Book were not effected by the writ petitioner and in

¶38

WA.No. 2067 of 2018

¶39

¶40

fact, there is no such case for the appellants. In the contextual situation, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions under rule 115(a) of Part-III of the KS&SSR. Going by the same, in respect of every non-gazetted employee, it is the duty of the Head of Office to obtain formal application one year in advance with relevant documents, from the employee concerned. If such steps, as contemplated under the provisions of KS&SSR, were followed scrupulously, this contingency would not have occurred. The fact

¶41

is that the respondent herein/ the writ petitioner, who retired from service on 31.08.2016, is yet to

¶42

receive the terminal benefits. In such

¶43

circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in

¶44

issuing a direction to disburse the arrears of pension and other terminal benefits payable to the

¶45

writ petitioner along with interest. The interest at

¶46

the rate of 6% p.a. also cannot be said to be exorbitant warranting any interference. In the said circumstances, there is no merits in this appeal and

¶47

WA.No. 2067 of 2018

¶48

¶49

it must fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

avs

WA.No. 2067 of 2018

¶57

¶58

The word “KS & SSR” appearing in the 4^th and 9^th lines in page No. 6 of the judgment dated 09/11/2018 in W.A No. 2067/2018, is corrected and substituted by “KSR” as per order dated 30.01.2019 in I.A No. 1/2019 in W.A No. 2067/2018.

¶59

Sd/- Deputy Registrar

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. P.J.Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. P.J.Abraham

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

Union of India Vs Jansiram Meena

Sreeja K K Vs Secrtary, Sreekandapuram Municipality

A.M.Basheer Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala, Vs K. Sudhakara Bhat

Dr. Lekshmipraya K.S Vs the State of Kerala

Vijnani P.S., Vs the Chief Manager