Kerala High Court
The Managing Director vs M. Venugopalan Nair on 3 July, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/20TH MAGHA 1938
WA.No. 176 of 2014 IN WP(C).13798/2012
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13798/2012 DATED 03-07-2013
.......................
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT :
------------------------------------
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
BY ADVS.SRI.E.K. NANDAKUMAR,SC,KSRTC
SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS :
-----------------------------------
1. M. VENUGOPALAN NAIR
SARADA MANDIRAM, PERUVARAM, NORTH PARAVUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 513(CHARGEMAN-RETIRED ON
31.8.07 FROM KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION).
2. BENNY VARGHESE
KOTTAPRAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR SWTS ALUVA-683 101,
(CHARGEMAN-RETIRED ON 31.5.07, FROM KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION).
3. A.C.JOHN
ALOPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENNALA P.O., CHALIKKAVATTOM,
ERNAKULAM-682 028. (CHARGEMAN -RETD. ON 31.5.2007 FROM
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION).
4. D.N.KALADHARAN
DEVASWOMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI-682 026
(CHARGEMAN-RETD. ON 31.8.07 FROM KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION).
5. C.M.ABDUL KHADER
KUTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA-683 101.
(TYRE RETREADER-RETD. ON 31.12.2007 FROM KERALA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION).
WA.No. 176 of 2014 IN WP(C).13798/2012
------------------------------------------------
6. K.CHANDRAN
KUZHIKKATTUKUNNE, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM-682 314.
(BLACKSMITH - RETD. ON 31.10.2007 FROM KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION.)
7. K.K.SAHJAN
KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VYTTILA, PONNURUNNI,
ERNAKULAM-682 019. (MECHANIC - RETIRED ON 30.4.2007
FROM KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION).
8. K.J.XAVIER
THODATHUCHERY HOUSE, KAVARAPARAMBU, PALLISSERY ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM-682 025. (CHARGEMAN-RETD. ON
31.12.06 FROM KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION).
9. K.STEPHEN
KAIMATHURUTHIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMPURAM-683 521,
(CHARGEMAN - RETD. ON 30.9.07 FROM KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION).
10. C.L.OUSEPH
CHIRAYINMEL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA P.O., PLY GROUND ROAD,
KALOOR, KOCHI-682 026. (CHARGEMAN- RETD. ON 29.2.2008
FROM KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION).
11. C.P.GEORGE
CHULLIKKATTU HOUSE, THEVARKAD, ERNAKULAM-683 517.
(ELECTRICIAN - RETD.ON 31.7.1998 FROM KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION).
ADDL. 12. KSRTC PENSIONERS' ORGANISATION (REG. No.400/80)
REPRESENTED BY P.A. MUHAMMED ASHRAF,
GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC PENSION BHAVAN,
W.S.R.A. - 211, KOTTAKKAKAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 23.
(IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 12TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER
DATED 14.02.2014 IN I.A. No.177/2014).
R1 TO R11 BY SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)
RADDL.12 BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-02-2017,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar, C.J. & Anil K. Narendran, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A. No. 176 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 03.07.2013 in W.P.(C) No.13798 of 2012. The said writ petition was filed by the respondents herein seeking a declaration that the pensioners of the appellant Corporation, namely, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation are entitled for disbursement of increase in Dearness Allowance (for short 'DA') in the same month in which it is paid to the serving employees of the said Corporation. Therefore, they sought for an order to set aside Ext.P18 to the extent such relief is declined to the pensioners. They have also sought for other consequential reliefs.
2. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition were opposed by the appellant/1st respondent by filing counter affidavit.
3. After considering the rival contentions, the learned single Judge by the impugned judgment disposed of the writ petition WA No.176/2014 -:2:- holding that, there is no justifiable reasons for the differentiation among the two categories and as such there is justification in the claim made by the respondents herein. However, the relief sought for to the extent of ordering payment of the increased DA with effect from the year 2011 is declined. Accordingly, the appellant Corporation is directed to implement the decision regarding increase in D.A. payable to its employees, both serving and retired, in future, following the observations contained in the judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant/1st respondent is before this Court in this appeal.
4. We heard arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/1st respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners.
5. During the course of arguments it is brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of this writ appeal the appellant Corporation has implemented the judgment of the learned single Judge and both serving and retired employees are WA No.176/2014 -:3:- being paid DA, without making any distinction between the retired and serving employees.
6. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the grievance of the writ petitioners highlighted in the writ petition is one regarding the discrimination shown by the appellant Corporation with respect to payment of increase in DA among the serving and retired employees.
7. The writ petitioners contended that whenever increase in DA is declared by the Government, all other Corporations, Boards and Public Sector undertakings, except the appellant Corporation, are paying such increase to the retired employees with effect from the date of such declaration. However, in the appellant Corporation, such increment is being paid to the pensioners only with effect from a subsequent date. With respect to the increase in DA declared by the Government during the year 2012, the appellant Corporation took a decision to allow such increase for serving employees, with effect from 01.02.2011 onwards. However, in the case of the pensioners, such increase was given WA No.176/2014 -:4:- only with effect from 01.03.2011. It was in such circumstances, the writ petitioners have approached this Court, contending that such discrimination is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. Before the learned single Judge, it was contended by the appellant corporation that the question as to whether the existing employees and pensioners can be treated differently in the matter of granting increased DA is a policy matter of the Corporation, which cannot be lightly interfered with by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. After considering the rival contentions, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the differential treatment meted out to the retired employees, when compared to the employees who are in service of the Corporation, in the matter of granting increased DA is discriminatory and cannot be sustained. The learned single Judge found that the appellant Corporation had always taken decision to effect increase in DA on par with the WA No.176/2014 -:5:- increase declared by the State Government. Though serving employees and pensioners fall under two distinct and different categories, there cannot be different yardsticks in the matter of payment of benefits on revision of DA. Once the appellant Corporation takes a decision to implement the revision of DA the same should have been uniformly applied. Unless there is any nexus with any objective sought to be achieved, no justifiable reasoning can be there for the differentiation among the two categories, and in such situation it will amount to discrimination.
10. It was in such circumstances that the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the observations contained in the said judgment, thereby directing the appellant Corporation to implement increase of DA payable to its employees, without discriminating the retired employees from those who are already in service. However, the learned single Judge directed only the payment of increased DA which was brought into force in the year 2011, with effect from the date of judgment.
WA No.176/2014 -:6:-
11. The reasoning of the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment is perfectly legal and proper, which warrants no interference in this appeal. We also notice that the appellant Corporation has already implemented the judgment of the learned Single Judge, during the pendency of this appeal.
In the result, the writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar, Chief Justice Sd/-
Anil K. Narendran, Judge ttb/09/02