L. DAKSHINA MURTHY S/O. LATE LAKSHMANACHAR Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, BENGALOORU CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALOR-560 027

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER while in the service of the respondent filed W.P. 2075/2004, whence the respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation, in compliance of which the respondent issued the endorsement dt. 17.3.2004 rejecting petitioner's request. Petitioner filed W.P. 21387/2005 calling in question the endorsement dt. 17.3.2004 alleging that certain benefits flowing from the Judgment in W.A.4997/1998 were not extended to him. The learned Single Judge by order dt. 5.10.2005 set -aside the endorsement and directed a fresh consideration in accordance with the principles laid down in W.A.4997/1998. Petitioner having filed CCC No.901/2005, respondent complied with the order dt.05.10.2005 by issuing a Divisional Establishment Order No.699 dt.24.12.2005 Ann -G fixing the Time Scale of Pay w.e.f. 16.12.1978 while declining to grant arrears of wage, but extending service benefits w.e.f. 14.5.1982, the date on which the petitioner was absorbed in a clear vacancy and refixation of the pay, where afterwards the Contempt Petition was dismissed by order dt. 21.2.2006.

(2.) A conductor having retired from service of the respondent -Road Transport Corporation on 31.3.2005 received the terminal benefits which included gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, fixation of arrears of Rs. 10,020/ - totalling to Rs.3,13,928/ - in addition to other sums under cheques dt. 26.10.2005 and 16.5.2005 in all totalling to Rs.5,17,014/ -.

(3.) ALTHOUGH Smt. S.B. Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of pay after refixation in the Time Scale w.e.f. 16.12.1978, I am afraid that contention is unsustainable since the condition mentioned in DEO 669 dt. 24.12.2005 Annexure -G is that the petitioner is not entitled for arrears of wages. The next contention that the petitioner was entitled to Provident Fund is also without any basis since such a claim is not maintainable in an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act. As regards the last contention, petitioner was entitled to leave encashment of 225 days, learned counsel for the respondent -Corporation submits that reckoning the basic pay + Dearness Allowance, when divided by 30 days and multiplied by 225, the leave encashment value of Rs.69,426/ - having been paid, the claim for Rs. 72,146/ - was justifiably not accepted by the Labour Court. That submission of the learned counsel for the respondent in the circumstances requires acceptance.