IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 3630 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PEETHAMBARAN K.K., S/O K.K.KRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KOZHIKATTIL HOUSE, S.N.PURAM, THOTTAKATTUKARA POST, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE WORKS MANAGER, REGIONAL WORKSHOP, K.S.R.T.C., EDAPPAL. 3. THE ASSISTANT WORKS MANAGER, REGIONAL WORKSHOP, K.S.R.T.C., EDAPPAL. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 3630/2008. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT. 8-6-2007. EXT.P2 FITNESS CERTIFICATE DT. 22-8-2007. EXT.P3 DUTY JOINING MEMO DT. 22-8-2007. EXT.P4 REPRESENTATION DT. 30-8-2007. EXT.P5 PRESCRIPTION DT. 24-12-2007. EXT.P6 TREATMENT RECORDS. EXT.P7 PRESCRIPTION OF THE DOCTOR. EXT.P8 PRESCRIPTION DT. 11-3-2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF HISTORY SHEET OF SERVICE OF PETITIONER. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 3630 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. His grievance in this writ petition is that after being incapacitated to do duty on account of serious illness, he did not report for duty for some time. Thereafter, when he was well, he approached the respondents with a medical certificate and a fitness certificate to join duty. He alleges that in spite of the same, the respondents have not permitted the petitioner to join duty. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(a) Declare by a Writ of Mandamus that the denial of employment to the petitioner is illegal; (a) direct the 3rd respondent by a Writ of Mandamus to permit the petitioner to join duty; (b) direct the respondent by a Writ of Mandamus to disburse the unpaid salary and other benefits which became payable to the petitioner during the period the petitioner is kept out of service from 22-8-2007.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the same, it is stated that the petitioner is in the habit of absenting himself from duty without leave or intimation. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not report for duty and he was never prevented from reporting for duty. A further contention is also raised to the effect that for his misconducts, proceedings are being initiated against the petitioner. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as also the standing counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. 4. When the respondents themselves admit that they have not prevented the petitioner from joining duty, the controversy in this writ petition can be easily resolved by directing the petitioner to report for duty on a specific date when the respondents shall admit the W.P.C. No. 3630/2008. -: 2 :- petitioner to duty without prejudice to their right to initiate appropriate proceedings, if the respondents have a case that the petitioner is guilty of any misconducts. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall report for duty before the 3rd respondent on 20-10-2008. The 3rd respondent shall thereupon admit the petitioner to duty. This would be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner, if the respondents are of opinion that the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct and the right of the petitioner to claim wages for the period during which the petitioner did not work, if the respondents have illegally prevented the petitioner from joining duty. I make it clear that I have not considered the question as to whether the petitioner has been prevented from joining duty or whether the petitioner had absented himself from duty on merits. It is left to be decided by the appropriate authority in appropriate proceedings . Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/