IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 2558 of 2004(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R. RADHAKRISHNAN CHETTIAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY CHETTIAR, DRIVER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM DEPT, ALLEPPEY, RESIDING AT 'RSMI', OTTATHENGIL, CHIRAKKADAVAM, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 GO. DT 6.6.1989. P2 MEMORANDUM DT 26.2.03 OF R1. P3 REPRESENTATION DT 17.7.03 TO R1. P4 MEMORANDUM DT 5.8.03 TO R1. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 2558 OF 2004 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The question raised in this writ petition is the following. The petitioner was appointed as a driver through Employment Exchange on 30.08.1980. Thereafter, on 4.11.1982, the petitioner was advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment of reserve driver. On 21.6.1983, he was appointed as a driver on the basis of the advice. The petitioner has approached this Court with the writ petition as amended claiming two reliefs. They are as follows. (i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the petitioner is entitled to calculate the provisional service rendered by him from 30.8.1980 to 16.6.1983 as eligible service for getting grade promotion; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that petitioner is entitled to reckon the provisional WPC.2558/04 : 2 : service rendered by the petitioner from 30.8.1980 to 16.6.1983 as eligible service for pension and other terminal benefits. 2. The petitioner claims that the provisional service rendered by him from 30.8.1980 to 16.6.1983 is eligible service for grade promotion, increments, etc. In support of his claim, he relies on the decision of this Court in Idicula Abraham Vs. KSRTC [2005 (2) KLJ 602]. The learned standing counsel for the KSRTC submits that the matter was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2243/2006. The question considered was whether in the light of the Government Order, only 50% of the daily wage service has to be counted. The Court took a view that on the appointment in that case on daily wage basis, Government Order dated 13.8.1984 allowed only 50% of service to be counted as qualifying service for pension. It is on the basis of the order that the Court took the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the claim of the petitioner to count the entire period of daily wage service. Learned WPC.2558/04 : 3 : counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the view expressed in Idicula's case has approved by a Division Bench decision of this Court in its judgment dated 18.12.2006 in W.A.No.2243/2006. After having gone through the aforesaid judgments, I am of the view that in the light of the view taken by this Court in Idicula's case as it was on the terms of the settlement dealing with pension, the claim of the petitioner ought to be allowed in so far as it relates to counting the entire period of his service on daily wages for pensionary benefits. Ordered accordingly. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 should be reopened reckoning the provisional service for grade promotion. I do not think that the said aspect is covered by the point decided in Idicula's case. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that it may receive further consideration in the light of the reasoning adopted in Idicula's case. The petitioner relies on the following observations in the judgment. WPC.2558/04 : 4 : “ In Ext.P6 rules with regard to the scales of pay, it is stated that provisional/employment exchange service followed by regular service without break will be reckoned for weightage. But, at the same time clause XIII(5) of Ext.P6 says that service will count as qualifying service provided there is no break exceeding three months (ninety days). In Ext.P7 conciliation settlement it is stated that daily wage period in respect of drivers and conductors and pre- appointment training of mechanical staff will also be counted as qualifying service for grade promotion.” In such circumstances, I quash Ext.P4 and direct that in so far as the claim for counting the provisional service towards the grade promotion, the 1st respondent will look into the matter and take a decision in accordance with law. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks