Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Road Transport ... vs K.Chandrasekharan on 13 April, 2023
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Murali Purushothaman
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29777 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 023 REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT HENA P.N DEPUTY LAW OFFICER
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
S.PREMLAL
THUNDI VEEDU, MAYYANAD P.O, KOLLAM-691 303.
BY SRI. S.PREMLAL (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).18/2022, 29/2022 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 28773 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT.HENA P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
C.SADASIVAN NAIR, INDEEVARAM,
JAWAHAR JUNCTION, PARIPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM.
BY SRI. C.SADASIVAN NAIR (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:3:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 28791 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC)
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695023, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
V. SAHADEVAN
(RTD. MECHANIC KSRTC), S/O. VELAYUDHAPANIKKER,
KUZHIVILAMELE VEEDU, MARANALLOOR,
PERUMPAZHATHOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695126.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:4:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29643 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 023, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
K. MANIKANTA DEV,
MANI MANDIRAM, KARUMANNOOR, ALAMPARA P.O.,
PALUKAL, K.K. DISTRICT-629170.
BY SRI. K.MANIKANTA DEV (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:5:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29827 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT.HENA P.N DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695023, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT.HENA P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
S.PETER
SHAJI BHAVAN, PUTHENVILA PUTHUVAL,
ASHTAMUDI P.O., KOLLAM-691602.
BY SRI. S.PETER (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:6:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29837 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT.HENA P.N DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT.HENA P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
K. RAMABHADRAN,
VEENALAYAM, KUTTICHAL, KUTTICHAL P.O.,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695574.
BY SRI. K. RAMABHADRAN (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:7:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29838 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023,
REP.BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SMT. HENA P.N.
DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 023, REP.BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SMT.
HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
M.SYAMALA DEVI,
MURALI BHAVAN, THEVALLY P.O., KOLLAM-691 009
BY SRI. M.SYAMALA DEVI (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:8:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29841 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KSRTC
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023,
REP.BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 023, REP.BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SMT.
HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
M.G.SUKUMARAN
SREE AVITTOM, KALLIYOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 042.
BY SRI. M.G.SUKUMARAN (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:9:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29848 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KSRTC
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 023, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SMT.HENA P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 023 REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SMT.HENA P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
C.JOHN., J.G.BHAVAN, EDAMUDUMBU,
MARANALLOOR, POLASSERY P.O.,
NEYYATTINKARA -695 121.
BY SRI. C.JOHN (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:10:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29849 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC),TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023,
REP.BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SMT. HENA P.N.
DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 023, REP.BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
K.KRISHNANKUTTY ASARY,
PERATHALA MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, VADAKODE,
NEYYATTINKARA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 121.
BY SRI. K.KRISHNANKUTTY ASARY (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:11:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29855 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION(KSRTC)
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023,
REP.BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SMT. HENA P.N.
DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 023, REP.BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
P.VIJAYALEKSHMY AMMA
PUSHPA VILAS, KANKATHUMUKU, KOLLAM -12.
BY SRI.P.VIJAYALEKSHMY AMMA (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:12:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29856 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6965 023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
6965 023, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
K.C. MOHANAKUMARAN NAIR,
SUSEELA NIVAS, KARIPUR P.O., NEDUMANGAD,
TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT-695 541.
BY SRI. K.C.MOHANAKUMARAN NAIR,(PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:13:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29863 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC), THE TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 023, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
G. NELSON, VEENIJ, MWRA 151,
OORAMPALLIL, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM-691 001.
BY SRI. G.NELSON (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:14:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 18 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT.HENA.P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION(KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT.HENA.P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
K.SUKUMARAN,
NISHA NIVAS, TC. 65/2021, THIRUVALLAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 027.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:15:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 29 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P N, DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P N, DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
P.K.AYYAPPAN
PARACHALIL HOUSE, MALAYINKEEZHU,
KOTHAMANGALAM P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691.
BY PARTY - SRI. P.K.AYYAPPAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:16:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 33 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC)
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT.HENA P N, DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
B. KRISHNAN NAIR,
S/O. P. BHASKARA PILLAI, PADMA NIVAS,
MATTUVANKAVU, PANCODE P O, VIA, ARYANAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695609.
BY SRI. B.KRISHNAN NAIR(PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:17:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 52 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-695023, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SHRI DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
K.CHANDRASEKHARAN
T.C.25/1415 (2), S.S.KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR WEST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695001.
BY SRI. K.CHANDRASEKHARAN (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:18:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 56 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695 023, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
K.VENUGOPAL,
NISHA, KULACODE, VELLANAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 542.
BY SRI. K.VENUGOPAL(PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:19:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 58 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION(KSRTC)
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 023, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 023, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT. HENA P.N. DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV SHRI DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
P.K.GIRIJAMONEY,
PAREPARAMBIL , PAKKIL P.O., NATTAKAM, PALLOM,
KOTTAYAN, DISTRICT 686 012.
BY SRI P.K.GIRIJAMONEY (PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:20:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 59 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
(KSRTC), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT.HENA.P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC),
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023,
REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SMT.HENA.P.N., DEPUTY LAW OFFICER.
BY ADV. SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT:
A.BENEDICT,
NEETHU BHAVAN, T.C. 3/78(1), PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 004.
BY SRI.A.BENEDICT(PARTY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.04.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).29777/2021 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:21:-
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, CJ Instant writ petitions are filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and its Managing Director, challenging the common order passed by the Lok Ayukta in Complaint Nos. 1497/2007, 1501/2007, 1503/2007, 1509/2007, 1511/2007, 1513/2007, 1515/2007, 2335/2007, 357/2008, 1521/2008, 1523/2008, 1525/2008, 1527/2008, 1529/2008, 1531/2008, 1533/2008, 1540/2008, 1541/2008, 1542/2008, 1543/2008, and 1544/2008 respectively, dated 9.6.2010 (Exhibit-P1). Petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the respective complaints in Exhibit-P1 order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta and quash the same so far as it relates to the respondents/complainants.
2. Since the issue raised in all the writ petitions are similar, we heard them together and propose to deliver this common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, let us consider the facts stated in W.P.(C) No.29777 of 2021.
4. According to the petitioners, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is a State transport undertaking, established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, and is a State-owned road WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:22:- transport corporation. It is further stated that the Corporation and registered trade unions have entered into a bipartite agreement on 13.04.1999, setting apart the rights and duties of the Corporation and the registered trade unions. As per the terms of the agreement, the date of effect of the agreement is 01.02.1999; 'surrender of earned leave' was reintroduced in the Corporation; and employees are entitled to claim it at the time of retirement.
5. Petitioners have further stated that a few retired employees of the KSRTC approached the Lok Ayukta, claiming for surrender value of earned leave, prior to the bipartite agreement dated 13.04.1999, which according to the petitioners, is against the terms of the bipartite agreement and by Exhibit-P1 order, impugned in all the writ petitions, Kerala Lok Ayukta has directed to pay commuted value of pension to all the respondents/complainants therein.
6. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.29777/2021 challenged one among the order and a learned single Judge vide Exhibit-P2 in W.P.(C) No.21701/2010 & connected case dated 9.3.2021, set aside the same. It can be seen from Exhibit-P2 judgment that KSRTC has challenged the order of the Lok Ayukta, mainly on two grounds; (i) maintainability of the complaint WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:23:- before the forum; and (ii) entitlement of the claim.
7. The grievance of the petitioners are that though they have secured a judgment (Exhibit-P2), setting aside the common order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta, in one of the cases filed by retired employee, to disburse the surrender value of earned leave prior to the bipartite agreement, the Lok Ayukta, without considering the same, proceeded with the remaining matters and insisted the writ petitioners to get similar orders in the remaining matters as well.
8. That apart, according to the petitioners, if an order passed by an authority or forum, is interfered by this Court, while exercising its judicial review, it is obligatory on the part of the said forum or authority to give respect to that order and drop all the further proceedings. Exhibit-P2 judgment has become final and this Court made it clear that as per the provisions of the bipartite agreement, the employees of the Corporation can claim surrender of the earned leave only from the date mentioned in the agreement and not prior to that.
9. In support of the averments made, petitioners have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagabhushana M. v. State of Karnataka & Others [(2011) 3 SCC 408], and submitted that adjudication WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:24:- of competent court is final and conclusive not only with regard to the actual litigation but also with regard to all incidental and connected litigation arising out thereof.
10. Further, reliance was also made to the decision in All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi and Others MANU/SC/0119/2019, and submitted that judicial decorum and propriety demanded that a judicial order, ad interim, interim or final not vacated, varied, modified, recalled or reviewed by a Bench of Co-ordinate strength or larger strength or a higher forum, but not a smaller Bench of lesser strength, except in cases where such authority to a lower forum and/or smaller Bench was expressly conferred or implicit in order sought to be vacated, varied, modified, recalled or reviewed.
11. On the above pleadings and in support of the reliefs sought for, petitioners have raised the following grounds:
A. Lok Ayukta has already passed a common order directing the KSRTC to pay the commuted value of pension to the petitioners therein and this Court has quashed one among such orders by Exhibit-P2 judgment. According to the petitioners, said judgment is, in fact, applicable to all the other cases as well. Therefore, the continuance of the further proceedings before the Lok Ayukta is nothing, but WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:25:- abuse of process of the Court.
B. Petitioners have further contended that as per the bipartite agreement between the Corporation and the Union, the date of effect of the agreement is 01.02.1999 and surrender of earned leave was reintroduced in the Corporation and the employees are entitled to claim it at the time of retirement from 01.12.1999. However, Lok Ayukta has passed an order directing the Corporation to pay the benefits to the respondents therein. By Exhibit-P2 judgment, a learned single Judge of this Court has set aside the order and made it clear that the claims based on the bipartite settlement is applicable only from the date mentioned therein and not prior to that. Therefore, Exhibit-P1 order is liable to be interdicted by this Court.
C. Petitioners have further contended that as long as the bipartitle agreement between the Corporation is binding on the employees and not subjected to challenge before any Court of law, the rejection of the claim for commuted value of pension by the Corporation is valid and thereby the direction of Kerala Lok Ayukta is highly erroneous, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law.
12. Based on the above grounds, Mr. Deepu Thankan, learned counsel for the KSRTC, made submissions.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:26:-14. Relevant portion of the impugned common order dated 9.6.2010, passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta, in the respective complaints filed by the respondents herein, is extracted hereunder:
26. Contention of the petitioners is that Clause XXIV of the bipartite agreement admits no doubt and as per it petitioners are entitled to the benefit of surrender value of earned leave earned even prior to the date of agreement viz., 13.04.1999. They contended that the action of the respondent denying the same on the basis of this order amounts to violation of the terms and conditions mentioned in Clause XXIV of the agreement and hence it thoroughly lacks any justification. The contention of the respondent is that there is no provision in the K.S.R for surrender of earned leave, thal the benefit is confined to Government employees by an executive order, that the surrender benefit of earned leave enjoyed by the State Government employees is seen granted to the employees of the Corporation as per the agreement executed in 1999 and as per Clause X of the agreement, it is effective only from 13.04.1999 and that, there is no provision in the agreement for allowing the benefit of surrender value of earned leave accrued before the date of the agreement and hence the benefit of surrender of earned leave can be only after the aforesaid date of agreement.
27. On 28.12.1992 respondent issued an order to discontinue the system of surrendering the leave (Ext. R1). As per Ext. R1 order dated 28.12.1992 respondent has discontinued surrender of earned leave system. In Ext.R1, it is stated that in order to avoid hardship to the employees and officers sanction was given for encashment of surrender leave allowance, but payment not effected will be cancelled and brought back to the leave account. By Ext.R2 dated 23.04.1999 respondent clarified that surrender of earned leave/full pay leave sanctioned by Item No.XXIV of the proceedings would be applicable only to leave earned after the date of signing of the agreement, ie., 13.04.1999. Learned counsel for the respondent heavily relied on Ext. R2 and maintained that petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of surrender value of earned leave prior to 13.04.1999. He urged that as per Clause X of the WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:27:- agreement it is effective only from 13.04.1999 and the contentions of the petitioners otherwise are not tenable.
Clause X of the agreement is extracted hereunder.
"X. Date of Effect - The revised scales of pay will be effective from 1.3.1997 or on the date of option of an employee as; the case may be. All clauses in this Agreement except those clauses revising scale of pay. Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance will have effect from 1.2.1999. The long term Agreement should be for Five years."
Clause XXIV reads thus:
"XXIV. Surrender of eared leave - Surrender of Earned leave will be re-introduced in K.S.R.T.C as in Government. Twenty days of earned leave/full pay leave can be surrendered in a Calendar Year. At the time of retirement, Earned leave/Full pay leave upto 300 (Three hundred only) days can be surrendered. Subsequent amendments effected by Government from time to time will also be made applicable."
From a reading of Clause XXIV, it is not possible to discern that the said clause will have application only from 13.04.1999 as contended by the respondent. It is not possible to hold that surrender of earned leave can come into effect from the date of agreement only. What has been stated is that at the time of retirement of the employee, earned leave/full pay leave upto 300 days can be surrendered. If the contention of the respondent is accepted, the position will be that an employee retiring few days after the specified date will not be in a position to surrender any leave. Respondent's contention that the benefit of surrender of earned leave can be availed only in respect of the earned leave earned after the date of signing of the agreement viz. 13.04.1999 cannot find any support from Clause XXIV of the agreement.
28. Counsel for the petitioners contended that while the bipartite agreement is in force, respondent is not justified in holding that the employees are not entitled to the benefit of surrender of earned leave earned prior to the date of agreement as it amounts to denial of the positive recitals in the agreement WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:28:- not hinting even remotely that it could be so as contended by the respondent. Once it is admitted that bipartite agreement was signed by the respondent and the Trade Unions on behalf of the employees its sanctity cannot be snatched off by an order unilaterally made by the respondent. From a reading of Clause XXIX it is not possible to hold that the entire leave at the creditor of retired employees cannot be surrendered and such surrender can only be of leave earned after 13.04.1999. The sole restriction found in Clause XXIV is that the maximum number of eared leave/full pay leave which can be surrendered is upto 300 days. This would abundantly clearly indicate that a retired employee is entitled to the benefit of surrender of earned leave earned prior to the date of agreement also.
29. Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent had issued Order No.LRB-02....30/97 dated 23.04.1999 stating that surrender of earned leave / full pay leave sanctioned by item 24 of the proceedings (bipartite agreement) will be applicable only to leave earned after the date of signing of the agreement, viz., 13.04.1999. Without any such clause in the agreement, attempt is only to discard the very intent and purpose of Clause XXIV. There is considerable force in the contention of the petitioners that the wording in Clause XXIV of the agreement regarding leave surrender is clear and unambiguous and no latent meaning can be imported to it to the advantage of the respondent and manifest injustice and disadvantage to the retired employees.
30. As against the bipartite agreement between the respondent and the Trade Unions on behalf of the workers, one sided and partisan approach of the respondent in Interpreting Clause XXIV of the agreement in support of the order cannot have any legal force. The words in Clause XXIV, as already pointed out, is clear, precise and indubitable. In this context it is apposite to refer to the decision in Dr.Mini K.V. v. Director, Ayurveda Medical Education and others [I.L.R 2006 (2) Kerala 398], wherein it has been held that where the language is clear, there is no need to strain for a meaning deviating from the ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning particularly when the Interpretation does not lead to any absurdity. Oft quoted dictum laid down in the decision in Pakala Narayana Swamy v. Emperor (AIR 1939 PC 47) is that when the WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:29:- meaning of the words is plain, it is not the duty of the courts to busy themselves with supposed intentions. Thus, as the language in Clause XXIV, is clear and offers no alternative interpretation, the contention of the petitioners cannot be held to be lacking in merit. Obviously, respondent cannot supplant or infringe the valuable rights conferred on the retired employees as per the bipartite agreement by issuing order restricting the surrender of earned leave to the period after 13.04.1998.
31. Respondent contended that a copy of the bipartite agreement was sent to the leaders of the recognised Trade Unions of the employees and no objection to it was received from any one of them. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that this contention has no legal basis as the order itself is illegal and contrary to the terms of the agreement and as the respondent is bound to implement the terms of the agreement in letter and spirit till a fresh agreement is entered into between the parties. Mere sending a copy of the executive order issued contrary to the terms of the agreement to the leaders of the recognised Trade Unions cannot have any binding force especially when the order itself is not in accordance with the terms and recitals in Clause XXIV of the agreement. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that the respondent Corporation and the Trade Unions are bound by the settlement reached under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act since the settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is really on a par with an award passed by the adjudicating authority. There is considerable force in the above contention and it deserves acceptance.
32. Another contention of the respondent is that in view of the decision of the High Court in W.P.(C). No 9243 of 2009, contentions or the petitioners are not tenable. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the High Court has not declared in the writ petition that the impugned order issued by the respondent Corporation in the matter of surrender of eamed leave / full pay leave is valid and in consonance with the provisions of the agreement. Reliance placed by the respondent on the said judgment of the High Court in the writ petition is not in any way helpful to the contention set forth by the respondent.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:30:-33. Parties to an agreement may vary some of its terms by a subsequent agreement. In the case before us, there is no subsequent agreement between the parties. Unilateral declaration by one party in the absence of an agreement cannot be construed as legally enforceable. In a contract, if one of the parties is empowered to unilaterally vary the obligations under the contract, it can certainly be held to be alterable, but the extent of the power to vary cannot be construed to entitle the party to vary matters other than those specifically provided in the contract. As the bipartite agreement does not allow the respondent to make any variation, in it on its own action of the respondent virtually extinguishing the right of the retired employees to obtain the benefit of surrender of earned leave to their credit prior to the date of agreement cannot be sustained as it has no legal force.
34. Clause XXIV of the agreement cannot be ignored or overlooked. It lays emphasis that on the date of retirement, the retired employees are entitled to the benefit of surrender of earned leave upto 300 days and that has to be disbursed to them. As the terms of the agreement are binding on the respondent, any deviation from it by the respondent cannot be countenanced. Respondent has no manner of right to deviate from the terms of the agreement. Learned counsel for the respondent could not establish that it is open to the respondent to vary the terms of the agreement to the effect that surrender value of earned leave can only be obtained after 13.04.1999. As the action of the respondent is without any legal basis and against the terms of the agreement, it cannot certainly be sustained.
35. We hold that petitioners are entitled to the benefit of surrender of earned leave to their credit earned prior to the date of agreement, viz., 13.04.1999, and thereafter, at the time of their retirement. Respondent Corporation is directed to disburse the surrender value of earned leave which stood to their credit prior to 13.04.1999 and thereafter, at the time of retirement.
For effecting payment and action taken report, post on 15.07.2010."
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:31:-15. Reading of the impugned common order made in Complaint No.2335 of 2007 and other connected cases dated 09.06.2010, makes it clear that, as to how the benefit of Surrender of Earned Leave was extended to the employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, which existed even prior to the date of the agreement dated 13.04.1995, and as to how if Clause (XXIV) relied on by the petitioner Corporation, if interpreted in the manner as projected by the Corporation, would affect the interest of the employees.
16. Added further, the Lok Ayukta had adverted and ordered, with reference to Clause X of the agreement.
17. Let us consider what Clause X states.
"X - Date of Effect:- The revised scales of pay will be effective from 1.3.1997 or on the date of option of an employee as the case may be. All clauses in this Agreement except those clauses revising the Scales of Pay, Dearness Allowances, and House Rent Allowances, will have effect from 1.2.1999. The long term Agreement should be for Five years."
18. Reading of the above makes two things clear.- (i) As regards revised Scales of Pay, the same would be effective from 1.3.1997 or on the date of option of the employee, as the case may be; and (ii) It is well known that Surrender of Earned Leave is not an allowance, and that is why, it is not included in the latter part of Clause X. WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:32:-
19. Clause XXIV deals exclusively with Surrender of Earned Leave and it is an independent clause not dealing with revised Scales of Pay or allowances. Clause X cannot be imported into Clause XXIV.
20. Impugned common order has been passed by the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No. 2335 of 2007 and other connected cases on 09.06.2010. As per the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, regarding the subject roster, matters pertaining to Human Rights Commission, Lok Ayukta, etc., ought to have been placed only before the First Court. Registry, by mistake, has posted the two writ petitions filed in the year 2010 and 2011 respectively, before a learned Single Judge, i.e., W.P.(C) Nos.21701 of 2010 and 29545 of 2011, and vide order dated 09.03.2021, the above-said writ petitioners were allowed, by observing as under:
"3. Learned counsel for the KSRTC submitted that with the exercise of the power in view of Second Schedule whereby actions relating to claim for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arises on retirement could be entertained. It is in that background jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta was invoked.
Having considered the matter, I am of the view that the power of Lok Ayukta to entertain is established, now I proceed to examine the veracity of the order. It has been contended that the clauses of Ext.P1 agreement has not been read by the Lok Ayukta while ordering the petitioner to make the payment of earned leave. In this regard attention of this Court was been drawn to Clause XXIV 'Surrender of earned leave' of agreement Ext.P1 dated 13.04.1999 and Clause X 'Date of Effect', the same read as under:WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:33:-
"X.Date of Effect The revised scales of pay will be effective from 01.03.1997 or on the date of option of an employee as the case may be. All clauses in this Agreement except those clauses revising scale of pay, Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance will have effect from 1-2-1999. The long term Agreement should be for Five years. XXIV Surrender of earned leave Surrender of Earned Leave will be re-introduced in K.S.R.T.C as in Government. Twenty days of earned leave/full pay leave can be surrendered in a Calendar Year. At the time of retirement, Earned leave/Full pay leave upto 300 (Three hundred only) days can be surrendered. Subsequent amendments effected by Government from time to time will also be made applicable."
4. It is in that background the order Ext.P2 was issued by the Corporation where surrender of earned leave/full pay leave has been made to be applicable with effect from 13.04.1999. 2nd respondent in such circumstances cannot be permitted to claim leave prior to that period. The terms and conditions of the agreement are sacrosanct, cannot be deviated by invoking the jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta. It is not in dispute that surrender value of earned leave with effect from 13.04.1999 to 30.11.2008 had been released. Therefore Ext.P2 order issued by the Corporation is perfectly justified. In this background of the matter, orders of the Lok Ayukta, Ext.P3 in W.P(C).29545/11 and Ext.P5 in W.P(C).21701/10, are not sustainable and are hereby set aside. Writ petitions are allowed."
21. With due respect, without adverting to the well considered common order of the Lok Ayukta, impugned in the present writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has set aside the orders of the Lok Ayukta, impugned in the above writ petitions. There is absolutely no discussion or valid reasons to find fault with the orders of the Lok Ayukta, except to WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:34:- state that the terms and conditions of the agreement are sacrosanct and cannot be deviated by invoking the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta. Benefit of Surrender of Earned Leave is a claim arising out of retirement, and therefore, Lok Ayukta has every jurisdiction to redress the grievance.
22. Question is, as to whether the Lok Ayukta has properly interpreted Clauses X and XXIV of the agreement. Going through the impugned common order passed by the Lok Ayukta in Complaint No. 2335/2007 and other connected cases, we are of the view that the writ court has failed to address the issue in proper perspective. Whereas, the Lok Ayukta, in the impugned common order, has elaborately discussed the effect of Clauses X and XXIV of the agreement.
23. Secondly, even assuming that the Registry has committed a mistake by listing the matters before the learned Single Judge, when the matters were listed in the year 2021, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) ought to have brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the matters should have been listed before a Hon'ble Division Bench. When, as per roster, matters have to be heard and decided by a Larger Bench, decision of the writ court is not binding on the Division Bench.
24. Common order in Complaint No.2335/2007 and other connected WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:35:- cases, has been passed by the Lok Ayukta on 09.06.2010. Taking advantage of the judgment passed in W.P.(C) Nos. 21701 of 2010 & 29545 of 2011 dated 09.03.2021, present writ petitions are filed, after eleven years.
Writ petitions are hit by undue delay and laches.
25. On the aspect of delay and laches, let us consider few decisions.
(i) In State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner, the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or other relief.
(ii) In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 1974 SC 2271:(1975) 1 SCC 152], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under:
"2... A person aggrieved by an order or promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year order of suspension such promotion; it is not that there is any period of limitation of the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal."
(iii) In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 24, held as under:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:36:-"24. Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. We do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with reference to various decisions of this Court where it has been emphasised time and again that where there is inordinate and unexplained delay and third party rights are created in the intervening period, the High Court would decline to interfere, even if the State action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal. .........Of course, this rule of laches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a strait jacket formula, for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But, such cases where the demand of justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay or creation of third party rights would by their very nature be few and far between. Ultimately it would be a matter within the discretion of the court; ex hypothesi every discretion must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it."WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:37:-
(iv) In G.C. Gupta v. N.K. Pandey [AIR 1988 SC 654], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 16, held as under:
"16. Inordinate delay is not merely a factor for the Court to refuse appropriate relief but also a relevant consideration it be so minded not to unsettle settled things."
(v) In State of Maharastra v. Digambar [AIR 1995 SC 1991], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considered a case, where compensation for the acquired land was claimed belatedly, and, at paragraphs 12, 18 and 21, held as under:
"12. How a person who alleges against the State of deprivation of his legal right, can get relief of compensation from the State invoking writ jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution even though, he is guilty of laches or undue delay is difficult to comprehend, when it is well settled by decision of this Court that no person, be he a citizen or otherwise, is entitled to obtain the equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution if his conduct is blame-worthy because of laches, undue delay, acquiescence, waiver and the like. Moreover, how a citizen claiming discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution against a State, could be relieved of his obligation to establish his unblameworthy conduct for getting such relief, where the State against which relief is sought is a welfare State, is also difficult to comprehend. Where the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution by a person against the welfare State is founded on its alleged illegal or wrongful executive action, the need to explain laches or undue delay on his part to obtain such relief, should, if anything, be more stringent than in other cases, for the reason that the State due to laches or undue delay on the part of the person seeking relief, may not be able to show that the executive action complained of was legal or correct for want of records pertaining to the action or for the officers who were responsible for such action not being available later on. Further, where granting of relief is claimed against the State on alleged unwarranted executive action, is bound to result in loss to the public exchequer of the State or in damage to other public interest, the High Court before granting such relief is required to satisfy itself that the delay or laches on the part of a citizen or any other person in approaching for relief under Article WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:38:- 226 of the Constitution on the alleged violation of his legal right, was wholly justified in the facts and circumstances, instead of ignoring the same or leniently considering it. Thus, in our view, persons seeking relief against the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, be they citizens or otherwise, cannot get discretionary relief obtainable thereunder unless they fully satisfy the High Court that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly justified the laches or undue delay on their part in approaching the Court for grant of such discretionary relief. Therefore, where a High Court grants relief to a citizen or any other person under Article 226 of the Constitution against any person including the State without considering his blameworthy conduct, such as laches or undue delay, acquiescence or waiver, the relief so granted becomes unsustainable even if the relief was granted in respect of alleged deprivation of his legal right by the State.
18. Laches or undue delay, the blame-worthy conduct of a person in approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary relief which disentitled for grant of such relief was explained succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, long ago, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong (1874) 5 PC 221) thus:
"Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute or limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:39:- the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of Justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy."
xx xxx xxxx
21. Therefore, where a High Court in exercise of its power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution issues a direction, order or writ for granting relief to a person including a citizen without considering his dis-entitlement of such relief due to his blameworthy conduct of undue delay or laches in claiming the same, such a direction, order or writ becomes unsustainable as that not made judiciously and reasonably in exercise of its sound judicial discretion, but as that made arbitrarily."
(vi) In State of Rajasthan v. D. R. Laxmi reported in (1996) 6 SCC 445, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that though the order may be void, if the party does not approach the Court, within a reasonable time, which is always a question of fact and have the order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court has to be exercised in a reasonable manner.
(vii) Though reasonable time is not prescribed in the rules framed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the words "reasonable time", as explained in Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal (AIR 2001 SC 2920), at Paragraph 13, are extracted hereunder:
"13. The word "reasonable" has in law prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the person concerned is called upon to act reasonably knows or ought to know as to what was reasonable. It may be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word "reasonable". The reason varies in its conclusion according to idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he thinks. The dictionary meaning of the "reasonable time" is to be so much time as is necessary, under the circumstances, to do conveniently what the contract or duty requires should be done in a particular case. In other words it means, as soon as WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:40:- circumstances permit. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's The Law Lexicon it is defined to mean:
"A reasonable time, looking at all the circumstances of the case; a reasonable time under ordinary circumstances; as soon as circumstances will permit; so much time as is necessary under the circumstances, conveniently to do what the contract requires should be done; some more protracted space than "directly"; such length of time as may fairly, and properly, and reasonably be allowed or required, having regard to the nature of the act or duty and to the attending circumstances; all these convey more or less the same idea."
(viii) In Board of Secondary Education of Assam v. Mohd. Sarifuz Zaman [(2003) 12 SCC 408], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"12. Delay defeats discretion and loss of limitation destroys the remedy itself. Delay amounting to laches results in benefit of discretionary power being denied on principles of equity. Loss of limitation resulting into depriving of the remedy, is a principle based on public policy and utility and not equity alone......."
(ix) In Karnataka Power Corporation Limited v. K. Thangappan and Another [AIR 2006 SC 1581: (2006) 4 SCC 322], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 6, held as under:
"6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party."
(x) In Chairman, U. P. Jal Nigam and Another v. Jaswant Singh reported in AIR 2007 SC 924, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering a catena of decisions, on the aspect of delay, at paragraph 13, held as under:
"13........Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or while away and did not rise to the occasion in WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:41:- time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the Court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be taken into consideration the question of acquiescence or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other parties are going to be prejudiced if the relief is granted."
(xi) In Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation reported in (2009) 1 SCC 297, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"The court exercises its jurisdiction only upon satisfying itself that it would be equitable to do so. Delay and/or laches, indisputably, are the relevant factors.
"15. The Superior Courts, times without number, applied the equitable principles for not granting a relief and/or a limited relief in favour of the applicant in a case of this nature. While doing so, the court although not oblivious of the fact that no period of limitation is provided for filing a writ petition but emphasize is laid that it should be filed within a reasonable time. A discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised if the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches."
Some of the decisions considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Virender Chaudhary's case (cited supra), are reiterated as follows:
"16. In Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and Anr. v. Jabar Singh and Ors. [(2007) 2 SCC 112], this Court held as under:
"It is not in dispute that the effective alternative remedy was not availed of by many of the workmen as detailed in paragraphs supra. The termination order was made in the year 1995 and the writ petitions were admittedly field in the year 2005 after a delay of 10 years. The High Court, in our opinion, was not justified in entertaining the writ petition on the ground that the petition has been filed after a delay of 10 years and that the writ petitions should have been dismissed by the WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:42:- High Court on the ground of laches."
17. In New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh and Ors. [(2007) 9 SCC 278], this Court held as under:
"16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. The respondents herein filed a writ petition after 17 years. They did not agitate their grievances for a long time. They, as noticed herein, did not claim parity with the 17 workmen at the earliest possible opportunity. They did not implead themselves as parties even in the reference made by the State before the Industrial Tribunal. It is not their case that after 1982, those employees who were employed or who were recruited after the cut-off date have been granted the said scale of pay. After such a long time, therefore, the writ petitions could not have been entertained even if they are similarly situated. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. (See Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347], U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh [(2006) 11 SCC 464] and Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd., v. K.Thangappan [(2006) 4 SCC 332])
17. Although, there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. (See Lipton India Ltd. v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 524] and M.R.Gupta v. Union of India [(1995) 5 SCC 628])"
(xii) In S.S.Balu v. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 2 SCC 479, following the judgment in NDMC v. Pan Singh (AIR 2007 SC 1365), at paragraph 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2002. The WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:43:- appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal thereagainst, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage."
(xiii) In Vijay Kumar Kaul v. Union of India [AIR 2012 SC 2274], following the earlier judgment relating to delay and laches, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that belated approach in filing writ petition is impermissible and at paragraphs 26 and 27, it is held as under:
"26. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is manifest that a litigant who invokes the jurisdiction of a Court for claiming seniority, it is obligatory on his part to come to the Court at the earliest or at least within a reasonable span of time. The belated approach is impermissible as in the meantime interest of third parties gets ripened and further interference after enormous delay is likely to usher in a state of anarchy.
27. The acts done during the interregnum are to be kept in mind and should not be lightly brushed aside. It becomes an obligation to take into consideration the balance of justice or injustice in entertaining the petition or declining it on the ground of delay and laches. It is a matter of great significance that at one point of time equity that existed in favour of one melts into total insignificance and paves the path of extinction with the passage of time."
(xiv) In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation [AIR 2013 SC 565], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraphs 12 and 14, held as under:
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:44:-"12. Delay and laches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause action, etc. That apart, if the whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third-party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay and laches as the same is not a constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience.
14. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-deliberate delay. The Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in fact emerged by delay on the part of the petitioners."
(xv) In State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179, following the judgment in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, [(1975) 1 SCC 152], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case a junior is promoted over his head, the senior must challenge it, at least within six months or at the most a year of such seniority and that anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. At Paragraph 24, it is held as under:
"24. There can be no cavil over the fact that the claim of promotion is based on the concept of equality and equitability, but WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:45:- the said relief has to be claimed within a reasonable time. The said principle has been stated in Ghulam Rasool Lone v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, [(2009)15 SCC 321].
27. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled.... the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer.
28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court."
(xvi) In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T.Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, at paragraphs 16 and 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:46:- sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.
17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."
26. Though the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has placed reliance on the decisions in Nagabhushana M. v. State of Karnataka & Others (cited supra) and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (cited supra), to contend that the common judgment made in W.P.(C) Nos. 21701 of 2010 & 29545 of 2011 dated 09.03.2021 be treated as a precedent, this Court is not in agreement with the same, as it is a well known fact that a Single Bench decision, without jurisdiction cannot bind a Division Bench.
27. Common judgment made in W.P.(C) Nos. 21701 of 2010 & 29545 of 2011 dated 09.03.2021, and other similar judgments rendered in writ WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:47:- petitions, are no more a good law. Directions given by the Lok Ayukta in the impugned common order should be implemented, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
For the reasons stated above, writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE krj WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:48:- APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29777/2021 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1533/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:49:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.28773/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.2335/2007.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:50:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.28791/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.357/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:51:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29643/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1515/2007.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:52:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29827/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1497/2007.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:53:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29837/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1542/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:54:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29838/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1509/2007.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:55:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29841/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1531/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:56:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29848/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1544/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:57:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29849/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1540/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:58:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29855/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1511/2007.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:59:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29856/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1501/2007.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:60:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29863/2021
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1513/2007.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:61:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.18/2022
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1543/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:62:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.29/2022
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1523/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:63:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.33/2022
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1538/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:64:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.52/2022
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1529/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:65:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.56/2022
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1527/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:66:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.58/2022
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1525/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
WP(C)s: 29777/2021 & contd. cases -:67:-
APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.59/2022
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA DATED 9/6/2010 IN COMPLAINT NO.1521/2008.
P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21701/2010 DATED 9/3/2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.