Disposed

Ajayakumar v.a., v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC5 Feb 2021WP(C)/108/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order addresses a driver's grievance regarding the classification of a specific period as leave worthy of advancement or duty. The court held that the dispute deserved re-examination beyond the prior order and directed the respondent to reconsider the leave and transfer applications expeditiously, with a report to be filed within one month.

What did the court decide?

KSRTC directed to reconsider petitioner's prayers for leave and transfer within one month and pass appropriate orders.

Ajayakumar v.a., Vs the Kerala State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.108 OF 2021(K)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

AJAYAKUMAR V.A., AGED 54 YEARS S/O. ACHUKUTTY, DRIVER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HARIPAD DEPOT, RESIDING AT VADAKEANJANTHARA, KADAKKARAPPALLY, P.O. CHERTHALA 68 529.)

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT) SRI.A.JOSEPH GEORGE (AZHIKKAKATH)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023.

¶11

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023.

¶12

3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE RAID TRANSPORT CORPORATION,. TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023.

¶13

4 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023.

¶14

5 THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HARIPAD DEPOT 690 514.

¶15

W.P(C).108/2021

¶16

¶17

R1-5 BY SHRI.T.P SAJAN, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - KSRTC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C).108/2021

JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner is a driver in the KSRTC. According to him, while on duty he suffered back pain and was taken to hospital. He had to undergo treatment for long period. On 28.02.2020, though he reported for rejoining, he was permitted to rejoin only on 14.03.2020. The intervening period was treated as LWA. Contending that, though he had reported for duty with fitness certificate, he was not permitted to join and since it was due to laches on the part of officers of KSRTC, the above period was liable to be treated as duty, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P(C).No.13960/2020. Pursuant to the direction in that Writ Petition, he was heard and Ext.P10 order was passed by the Managing Director. The disputed period was treated as eligible leave.

¶23

The present grievance of the petitioner is that, his prayer was not considered favourably in Ext.P10 and the above days shall be treated as duty. He has a further grievance that, he is retiring within 15 months and is entitled to be transferred to his home town, which is Cherthala. He has submitted Ext.P3 application. He laments that, his request has not yet been considered inspite of considerable time lag.

¶24

It seems that the petitioner has a specific case that, though, he reported for duty on 28.02.2020 along with Ext.P5 fitness certificate and requested to rejoin evidenced by Ext.P6, he was not permitted to

¶25

W.P(C).108/2021

¶26

¶27

join. According to him, that was due to the laches on the part of officers of KSRTC. If this is true, there is considerable force in his submission that he should be treated as on duty. This aspect has to be considered afresh, notwithstanding Ext.P10.

¶28

Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the KSRTC to take up Exts.P3 application, as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders on both his prayers for reconsideration of leave and transfer, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

Sbna

W.P(C).108/2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF THE DUTY PASS ISSUED .	TO THE
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY 39) OF THE	OF THE RELEVANT PAGE (P TRANSFER GUIDELINES.	AGE NO.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY 2.6.2020.	OF THE REPRESENTATION	DATED
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY	OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE	ISSUED
	BY DIR.	SREEKUMAR J.S. OF GOV	ERNMENT
	AYURVEDA 26.2.2020.	HOSPITAL, CEHRTHALA	DATED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY 28.2.2020 GOVERNMENT	OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICAT DISSED BY DR. SREEKUMAR J AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, CHERTH	E DATED .S., OF ALA.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY 28.2.2020.	OF THE REPRESENTATION	DATED
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY NO. E1 562	OF THE P6 REPRESENTATION /20/HPD DATED 13..2020.	RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY IN WPC NO.	OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10 13960/2020.	.7.2020
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY IN CONTEMP	OF THE JUDGMENT DAETD24. T OF COURT CASE NO. 1710/2	11.2020 020
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY DATED 19.1	OF THE ORDER NO. PL 13/139 0.2020.	60/2020
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY IN WPC NO.	OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19 17168/2019.	.6.2020

Ajayakumar v.a., v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajayakumar v.a., 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajimon K.K Vs the Excise Commissioner

Dr.Arun S., Vs the Regional Officer

Sajimon K.K. Vs the Excise Commissioner

Pradosh Keshav M.v., Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

C. Soman, Vs State Co-Operative Election Commission

Ganesh N.C Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation