U RAJAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Erstwhile employee of the Transport Department under Government. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short) was formed while he was working in the Transport Department. He was absorbed in the KSRTC in terms of the Rules issued at the relevant time of the formation of KSRTC. He retired from service on 30.6.1987. The petitioner was getting pension on the basis of the pay revision orders/pension revision orders and he received the same on the basis of the orders of revision issued on 2.3.2009. The petitioner's case is that even when order dated 2.3.2009 issued, some of the benefits which were granted to the State Government employees were denied to the petitioner and others who were absorbed from the Department. The petitioner claims that the Government had issued Ext.P1 order dated 22.3.1965, according to which, the Corporation is bound to extend all the benefits which are admissible to the employees under the Government to persons who were absorbed in the KSRTC. Therefore, it is the claim of the petitioner that all the benefits extended to the Government pensioners are liable to be granted to him. It is pointed out that when the benefits were revised based on pay revision order dated 17.3.2006 and implemented in the KSRTC as per order dated 2.3.2009, the 2nd respondent had granted only 3% fitment benefits as against the 6% fitment benefits given to the Government employees. When the pay revision/pension revision was implemented in the State Government w.e.f 1.4.2005, it was implemented in KSRTC only w.e.f 1.4.2009. Medical allowance was sanctioned to Government employees w.e.f 1.3.2006; whereas it was extended to the KSRTC only from 1.4.2009. Persons like the petitioner are denied the benefit of one rank one pension. Similarly situated persons had approached this Court in W.P .No.33646/2009 challenging the denial of benefits on par with the Government employees. Even after direction from this Court to consider their cases, there was no positive action and when their claim was rejected as per Ext.P2 order on 16.2.2010, the petitioner filed W.P .No.28046 of 2010 which was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment in which this Court, taking note of the observations contained in Ext.P6 order passed by the Lok Ayukta, disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedy in case any adverse decision was taken on the recommendations made in Ext.P3 by the Lok Ayukta.

(2.) Thereafter, Ext.P5 order was issued by the Government on 28.2015 in which the petitioner and others were informed that the KSRTC is running through acute financial crisis and therefore the additional pension liabilities of pensioners who were absorbed from the Erstwhile Transport Department would adversely affect the already ailing Corporation and therefore their request cannot be considered. The KSRTC had as per Ext.P6 letter informed the petitioner that as and when Government takes a decision in the case of the Departmental pensioners for implementation of the orders of Lok Ayukta and this Court, the petitioners and others would be granted the benefits. It was stated that as per Ext.P7 letter the KSRTC had requested the Government to take up the responsibility for payment of pension or to give them grant in order to sanction all pensionery benefits to the departmental pensioners of the KSRTC on par with the State Government pensioners.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when Ext.P1 specifically provides that the employees absorbed from the Erstwhile Transport Department would be granted all the benefits as admissible to the Government employees, the respondents are bound to disburse the benefits due to them as in the case of the Government employees and they cannot be denied the same on the basis of Ext.P6 and P7 letters.