Kerala High Court
S.Dathan vs The Chairman & Managing Director on 29 September, 2016
Author: P.B. Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/18TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 33370 of 2016 (U)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
-----------------------
S.DATHAN,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. SUKUMARAN NAIR, THAMARASSERY,
TKMC P.O., KARIKKODU, KOLLAM-691 005,
(DRIVER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
KOTTARAKKARA DEPOT).
BY ADV. SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
KOTTARAKKARA DEPOT.
BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 33370 of 2016 (U)
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION DATED 29-9-2016.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4-10-2016 IN CONTEMPT
CASE (C)NO.1594 OF 2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-6-2016 IN
WPC NO. 12782/2016.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15-3-2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PETITIONER'S SCHOOL
ADMISSION REGISTER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPIES OF RECEIPTS NO.009009 DATED 20-02-1997 AND
NO. 17084 DATED 04-02-2006.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S DUTY PASS NO.32707.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S DRIVING LICENCE NO.2/1009/1988
DATED 18-06-2013.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E.27/2001M(ELECY.) DATED 25-06-2001.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF DUTY DETAILS DATED 18-1-2011 AND 19-11-2012.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER IN G.O.(MS)NO. 78/2011/TRAN
DATED 22-12-2011.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 340/2014.
DATED 12-3-2014.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-02-2014 IN WRIT
APPEAL NO. 101/2014.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.PL-16/014915/12 DATED 28-09-2012.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31-5-2014 IN
WPC NO. 28076/2012.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PL-16/014915/12 DATED 20-05-2015
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-9-2015 IN
WPC NO. 29050/2015.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE DUTY DETAILS DATED 7-5-2016 ALONG WITH
ATTENDANCE DETAILS OF 2006 AND APPLICATION DATED 8-4-2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-----------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.33370 of 2016
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was an empanelled conductor in the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation). He had worked initially in the Corporation from 23.02.1997 to 21.07.2000. Later, he was appointed in the personal staff of a then Minister. It is stated by the petitioner that he rejoined duty after he was relieved from the personal staff of the Minister in the year 2006 and continued to work in the Corporation till 2011. All empanelled conductors, who have worked for a period of ten years as on 21.12.2011, are entitled for regularization as per Ext.P11 order of the Government. According to the petitioner, he has completed ten years of service in the Corporation as on 21.12.2011 and that therefore he is entitled for regularization in accordance with Ext.P11 order. The claim of the petitioner for regularization was, W.P.(C) No.33370 of 2016 -2- however, rejected by the Corporation as per Ext.P1 order, holding that the petitioner has only 9 years empanelled service in the Corporation as on 22.12.2011. Ext.P1 order is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation supporting Ext.P1 order.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.
4. It is conceded that every year in which the empanelled employee has performed one or more duty is liable to be reckoned for the purpose of considering his claim for regularization under Ext.P11 order of the Government. As noted above, the stand of the Corporation is that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service, whereas the stand of the petitioner is that he has completed 10 years of service. The counter affidavit filed by the Corporation indicates that the Corporation maintains the stand that the petitioner had rejoined duty and started working after the first spell only on 25.01.2007. The specific case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that he rejoined duty during June 2006. The petitioner W.P.(C) No.33370 of 2016 -3- relies on Ext.P18 information furnished to him under the Right to Information Act by the Assistant Transport Officer attached to Kottakkara unit of Corporation, in support of the said case. In Ext.P18, the attendance details of the petitioner have been furnished. Ext.P18 indicates that the petitioner had worked for four days in the year 2006. If the information furnished to the petitioner as per Ext.P18 is correct, the petitioner is entitled to regularization in accordance with Ext.P11 order of the Government. Ext.R1(a) report submitted by the Audit Division of the Corporation as regards the empanelled service of the petitioner is relied on by the Corporation in support of their stand that the petitioner had not worked in the year 2006. Paragraph 3 of Ext.R1(a) reads thus:
"22/07/2000 NaDW f5^G^xAx A_gM^O_W g<^\_Am Y^<x^5^D_x_Aa5Oa" .K^W 26.05.2001 NaDW 15.05.2006 Ufx Nxm D\B{_W g<^\_O_W Da?VK_xaKDaN^O dV`..Xm.FJX 04.02.2006_W xX`Dm HOV 17084 (%HaLt" 2) dI5^x" f5^G^xAx A_gM^O_W IaH:dIgUVHJ_H^O_ IC" 2?aAaO_GaUD^Oa", 5b?fD 06/2006_W Y^<V IaXq5J_f\ 6, 7, 18, 19 .K` D`OD_5{_W AcbG_ gx6fM?aJ_ O_GaUD^Oa" 5^CaKa (%HaLt" 3).
15.05.2006 Ufx fXd5Gy_gOx_W g<^\_O_\^O_xaKa .Ku5^VfM?aK dV`..Xm.FJX 04.02.2006_W f5..Xm.&V.?_.X_O_W IaH:dIgUVHJ_Hm IC" 2?aA_OD_gH^ Y^<V IaXq5J_W 06/2006_W AcbG_5Z gx6fM?aJ_O_GaUD_gH^ 'Dm X"Lt_:n W.P.(C) No.33370 of 2016 -4- FaxbYD fU{_U^5aKa."
It is seen from the portion extracted from Ext.R1(a) report that there are records at the Kottarakara Unit of the Corporation which indicate that the petitioner had worked for four days in the year 2006. The said report, however, indicates that corresponding documents to check the veracity of the said documents are not available and that therefore the Corporation is unable to satisfy the genuineness of the above document. Insofar as it is stated in Ext.R1(a) report that there are documents in the Kotarakara Unit of the Corporation to indicate that the petitioner had worked for four days in the year 2006, according to me, it is unjust to deny the benefits of regularization to the petitioner on account of the inability of the Corporation to satisfy the genuineness of the document.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P1 order is quashed and the Corporation is directed to regularize the petitioner in accordance with Ext.P11 Government Order. This shall be done within two months from today. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the Corporation from conducting a detailed enquiry as to the W.P.(C) No.33370 of 2016 -5- genuineness of the documents and entries relied on by the petitioner and taking appropriate action against the petitioner, if it is found that the documents and entires relied on by the petitioner are false and fabricated.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE bpr (true copy)