IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 29390 of 2006(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, (RETIRED STATION MASTER OF KSRTC KOLLAM UNIT), RESIDING AT KAVERI, VENPALAKKARA, VALATHUNGAL P.O. KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KARALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLLAM. 2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2.9.2011 , THE COURT ON 02/09/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 29390/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT 28.12.90. P2 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT 13.4.99 P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 7.7.00. P4 COPY OF THE DIRECTION TO R2. P5 COPY OF THE PETITION DT 5.4.06. P6 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DT 17.7.06 // True Copy // P.S. To Judge S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 29390 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. He was promoted as Station Master on 22.8.1988. He was further promoted as Inspector with effect from 6.9.1990. But, he relinquished the promotion on health grounds and opted to continue as Station Master till he retired on 29.2.2000. The employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, who stagnate in a particular post, is entitled to stagnation increments. The petitioner was granted stagnation increments in the post of Station Master. Subsequently, it was sought to be recovered on the ground that having relinquished the promotion, the petitioner is not entitled to stagnation increment. The excess amounts received by the petitioner towards stagnation increments were recovered from the petitioner with interest. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to call for the records leading to Ext.P6 and quash Ext.P6 memorandum; ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to re-fix the scale of pay based on the basic pay at Rs.9,330/- that was fixed and acted upon as early as in 1999; iii. to declare that the petitioner is entitled to earn the stagnation increments according to Ext.P1 agreement by elongating the same and to declare that his basic pay at the time of option as Rs. 3,135/- and Rs. 9330/- after revision as per Ext.P2; -: 2 :- iv. to direct the respondents to re-fix the basic pension and other consequential benefits after re-fixing of basic pay at Rs. 9,330/- and pay the arrears of pension and salary arrears with 18% interest; v. to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of difference in salary, the recovered amount of Rs. 28,292/- with interest, pension and other benefits with an interest @ 18% per annum. vi. to direct the respondents to pay the interest on the delayed payment of benefits as per Ext.P4 judgment @ 18% per annum.” 2. The petitioner's contention is that stagnation increments are covered by Exts. P1 and P2 settlement. In Clause IX of both Exts. P1 and P2, which are settlements for different periods, there is no provision to the effect that if an employee relinquishes promotion, he will not be entitled to stagnation increments. Therefore, the recovery of stagnation increments is unjust and unreasonable, is the contention raised. The petitioner also relies on the rule regarding relinquishment of promotion vis-a-vis time bound promotions contained in G.O.(P) No. 39/91/P & ARD dated 7th December, 1991, in clause 3(v) of which it is stated that those who relinquish promotion whether permanently or temporarily shall be entitled to the benefit of time bound promotion from existing grades if applicable. The petitioner would try to draw an analogy from the same and would contend that when on relinquishment of promotion, time bound promotion cannot be denied, by the same coin stagnation increment cannot also be denied on relinquishment of promotion, is the contention. -: 3 :- 3. Counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation would oppose the contention based on the counter affidavit filed. In the counter affidavit , it is stated that “the rule regulating forgoing of promotion has been complied from the introduction of service rules, which has superseded all pay revision agreements.” But the counsel is unable to provide me a copy of the rules nor has the rule been quoted in the counter affidavit. As such, I am unable to derive any help from either the counter affidavit or from the counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation in this regard. 4. I have considered the matter in detail. 5. The very expression “stagnation increment” connotes payment of increment when a person stagnates in the same post for a particular or more period. In Ext.P2, it is stated that stagnation increment should be restricted once in three years and the amount should be equivalent to last increment in the scale. That means, stagnation increment is given once in 3 years. It is not disputed before me that apart from stagnation increment, the employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation are also entitled to time bound higher grade promotion. The petitioner could not bring to my attention any provision, whereby a person who relinquishes promotion is made eligible for stagnation increment as well, as in the case of Government servants in G.O(P) 39/91 in respect of time bound promotion. As such, I am not inclined to apply the same yardstick for stagnation increment. When the -: 4 :- petitioner has consciously relinquished promotion to the higher post, he cannot claim that he is stagnating in the lower post and seek stagnation increment. Of course, the petitioner contends that since the relinquishing of promotion is on health grounds, he is eligible for stagnation increments. But there cannot be any distinction between relinquishment on health ground or other grounds in the absence of specific provision regarding the same. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/