IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36383 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONERS(S): --------------- 1. K.SURENDRAN PILLAI, (SUPERINTENDENT, KSRTC, CHADAYAMANGALAM, RETD. ON 28.2.2007), NIRMALYAM, VALANCHERY, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S.SAJAN, (SUPERINTENDENT, KSRTC, CHIEF OFFICE, RETD. ON 31.03.2008), THEKKETHIL HOUSE, AROOR, MULAKKALATHUKAVU P.O. 3. S.SATHEENDRANATH, (DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTANT, KSRTC, CHIEF OFFICE, RETD. ON 31.05.2008), APARNA, NEAR ELLUVILA TEMPLE, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. G.SREERANJAN, (SUPERINTENDENT, KSRTC, CHIEF OFFICE, RETD. ON 31.05.2008), KALIYILIVEEDU, MULLARAMCODE, MANAMBOOR P.O., KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI. V.V.N.NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010 A/W. WP(c).No.36558/09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.36383/09 & 36558/09 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Exts.P7 and P8 are challenged in WP(c).No.36383/09 and Ext.P7 is challenged in WP(c).No.36558/09. Issue raised in these writ petitions being common, reference is made to the facts as stated in WP(c).No.36383/09. 2. Petitioners retired from the service of the respondent Corporation between the period from February, 2007 to 31st May 2008. Subsequent to their retirement, by virtue of the settlement entered into between the Management and the Unions on 28.11.2008, pay and other benefits were revised with retrospective effect from 1.3.2006. Consequent on the said development, Corporation issued Ext.P5 order dated 2.3.2009, revising the pension and pensionary benefits. According to the petitioners, substantial number of the beneficiaries who have retired prior to them, were extended the benefit of Ext.P5, within one month of issue of the said order. However, in respect of those who have retired for the period from 1.3.2006 to April, 2009, the benefits were not released. WPC.No.36383/09 & anor. :2 : 3. Complaining of delay in disbursing the benefits due to them under Ext.P5, petitioners approached this court by filing WP (c).No.27982/09. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 6.10.2009, directing the respondents to consider the claim for the benefit of Ext.P5. Complaining that the judgment was not complied with the petitioner again approached this court by filing COC.No.1443/2009. During the pendency of the said petition, the first respondent issued Ext.P7 order dated 25.11.2009, rejecting the request and placing reliance on Ext.P8, an order issued on 19.11.2009, fixing a schedule for paying the benefits due under Ext.P5 to the retired employees like the petitioners. It was on receipt of Exts.P7 and P8 that this writ petition is filed challenging the said orders. 4. Counsel for the petitioners contends that a section of the beneficiaries of Ext.P5 having been paid the revised benefits, non-payment or delay in payment of the benefits due, amounts to discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Yet another submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that as substantial part of the work for quantification and disbursement of benefits have already been completed, there WPC.No.36383/09 & anor. :3 : is absolutely no rationale in delaying the disbursement of benefits in the manner as ordered in Ext.P8. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, who placed reliance on Ext.P8 referred to above. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners, who being retired employees, are entitled to the benefit of Ext.P5. The only question is whether the respondent can be faulted or this court is to interfere on the ground that the benefit of Ext.P5 has been inordinately delayed violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Answer to this question depends upon the facts as disclosed in Ext.P8. A reading of Ext.P8 order shows that there are 5854 employees similar to the petitioners who have retired from the service of the Corporation subsequent to 1.3.2006. It is stated that in view of the paucity of manpower and corresponding increase in the workload, there has been delay in revising the benefits as ordered in Ext.P5. It is stated that despite all this, with the available limited manpower, benefits have already been quantified in respect of the employees who have retired till November, 2006. It is stated that in view of the WPC.No.36383/09 & anor. :4 : limitations in manpower and corresponding increase in the workload and in order to ensure expeditious settlement of the claims of the petitioners, Corporation has formulated a schedule in terms of which the entire claims would be settled before 31st December, 2010. The details of the schedule fixed is also given in Ext.P8. 6. Having gone through Ext.P8 and in the absence of any material on record to conclude that the reasons stated in Ext.P8 are either arbitrary or mala fide, I do not find any substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners. In this situation the case does not call for interference in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am also not impressed by the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that there is a case of discrimination. As already seen, the benefit of Ext.P5 is due to be paid to the entire beneficiaries. In view of the limitations pointed out by the Corporation as above, benefits could be disbursed only in stages and benefits have been given to one section and in so far as others are concerned, they are not denied payment but are being paid in the manner as stated in Ext.P8. This does not disclose any case of WPC.No.36383/09 & anor. :5 : discrimination. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/