Disposed

R.Madhu, v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC1 Nov 2021WP(C)/22986/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed the 1st respondent (KSRTC) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation (Ext.P8) regarding duty admission within two months, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the representation raised by a transport conductor.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 within two months of receipt of the judgment copy.

R.Madhu, Vs Kerala State Road Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 22986 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

R. MADHU, AGED 49 YEARS S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, GOWARI SANKARAM, THENGAMAM P. O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 691 522, (CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, KOTTARAKARA DEPOT).

¶8

BY ADV SRI. N. SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BAHVAN FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

¶11

2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KSRTC, TRANSPORT BAHVAN FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

¶12

3 DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KOTTARAKKARA DEOT, KOLLAM DISTRICT -691 531.

¶13

ADV. DEEPU THANKAN - SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.22986 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner is working as a conductor in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation at Kottarakara Depot. The petitioner sustained injuries in an accident on 06.06.2016 and had to undergo prolonged treatment. According to the petitioner, on expiry of the period of leave the petitioner was initially provided with light duty. After the expiry of the light duty, though the petitioner requested the 3^rd respondent for continuation of light duty, there was no response from the respondents.

¶19

The petitioner submits that, though the petitioner reported for duty, he was not admitted to duty. The petitioner has filed Ext.P8 representation before the 1^st respondent requesting to admit him for duty. The petitioner submits that Ext.P8 is not so far considered by the 1^st respondent and the petitioner is not permitted to join duty. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for consideration of Ext.P8 by the 1^st respondent.

¶20

WP(C).No.22986 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶23

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. I make it clear that, I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of Ext.P8 representation.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶27

SPR

¶28

WP(C).No.22986 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶32

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS ISSUED BY DR.D. PRADYUMNAN, ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 02.12.2016 ISSUED FROM THE TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL 15/0024563/2016 DATED 06.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.04.2017 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE 2NDD RESPONDENT WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E3/2148/18/KTR DATED 09.05.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST DATED 23.05.2018 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E1/4820/18/KTR DATED 12.10.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH ITS TUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.10.2021 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

R.Madhu, v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Madhu, v. 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

K.Ramachandran Vs Director General

Fathima Vs Ajithkumar

Kareem N.M. Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala Kalamandalam Deemed to Be University of Art and Culture Vs Gopikrishnan R.

Fadhil Rahman, Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

Goldview Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Regional Privident Fund Commissioner