IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 RP.No. 927 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30071/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER:PETITIONER IN W.P.(C): ------------------------------------------------------------------ V.J.PAULOSE RETD DRIVER, MEMPARA PUTHENPURAYIL, MEMPARA P.O.,PUTHENCRUZ. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C): -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM 2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION MUVATTUPUZHA. BY SHRI K. PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.NO.927 OF 2008 IN W.P.C. NO. 30071 OF 2004 E -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner had approached this Court on the basis that the petitioner was actually entitled to medical leave and that, however, he was illegally granted leave without allowance. This Court took note of the statement in the Counter Affidavit to the effect that actually the petitioner was a habitual unauthorised absentee and he has been subjected to disciplinary action in several times and he has been punished more than eighteen times on various occasions including criminal offences and his increments were either withheld or postponed for a long period. It was also stated that in certain disciplinary cases, his leave was also regularised as leave without allowance as a punishment. This Court also observed, apparently referring to the Counter Affidavit that the petitioner was visited with punishment as per disciplinary proceedings as stated in the Counter Affidavit, and RP 927/08 2 that may be the reason while the petitioner was not able to achieve basic pay at the time of retirement. But thereafter, according to the statement in the Counter Affidavit, it was ordered that if the petitioner has any dispute or grievance, he may bring it to the notice of the concerned authority and the concerned authority will look into it and take a decision thereon in accordance with law. It is stated in the Review Petition that actually the petitioner was not punished as stated in the Counter Affidavit, and that if his request is taken up, the authority will be bound by the Judgment. Of course, no Reply Affidavit was filed by the petitioner regarding the punishments mentioned in the Counter Affidavit. I have already left it open to the petitioner to represent the matter, if he has any dispute or grievance about the period of leave without allowance not being counted towards service on the basis of the statement in the Counter Affidavit that leave without allowance will also count for service. I do not think that at any rate petitioner has made out a ground for RP 927/08 3 interference in the Review Petition. The Review Petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge