IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14353 of 2008(H) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- V.M.ASHRAF,MANJALI KARA,KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE,PARAVOOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. 3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,VIGILANCE, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASST.TRANSPORT OFFICER, NORTH PARAVOOR DEPOT,KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION. 5. ZONAL OFFICER,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRAN. R2 TO R5 BY SHRI K. PRABHAKARAN, SC, K SRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 14353 OF 2008 H -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has retired from the service of the respondent Corporation while working as a Mechanic on 30.11.2007. His complaint is that he has not received his pension and other retirement benefits. Today, when the matter came up, learned counsel for petitioner has produced before me an order dated 24.5.2008 issued by the Executive Director (Vigilance), KSRTC. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: "I have gone through the entire file in detail. In view of the finding in the enquiry and re-enquiry, further action against Shri V.M. Asharaf, Mechanic, North Paravoor is dropped. Period under suspension is treated as duty." 2. There is reference made to the detailed enquiry and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner not guilty and in the re- enquiry also, it was found that he was not guilty. I heard the WPC. 14353/08 H 2 learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation also. I feel that in the light of this development, the claim of the petitioner for grant of retirement benefits, like Pension, Provident Fund and Staff Welfare Fund should receive the attention of the second respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of Pension, Provident Fund as also Staff Welfare Fund. The second respondent shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, and the amounts found due, shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter. Petitioner will also be entitled to statutory interest on the Provident Fund amount from the due date till the date of payment. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.