IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15852 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. M. V.GIREESHAN, S/O.VELU, AGED 58 YEARS RETIRED COACH BUILDER, KSRTC, R/W ALUVA,RESIDING AT MAILENNAKUZHIYIL, KARIKKODU MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM 3. THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER, KSRTC, REGIONAL WORKSHOP, ALUVA BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.CHACKO, SMT. C.M. CHARISMA & SHRI N.A. SHAFEEK. RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER, KSRTC, REGIONAL WORKSHOP, ALUVA. BY SHRI K. PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 15852 OF 2008 K -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking payment of Ex-gratia pension. According to petitioner, pursuant to the Government Order read as first paper in Ext.P2, the respondent KSRTC has issued Ext.P2 order and he is entitled to be paid Ex- gratia pension. According to counsel for petitioner, petitioner has already moved an application for Ex-gratia pension through the third respondent and the third respondent submitted the proposal before the second respondent vide proceedings dated 12.2.2007. It is further stated that in spite of the said proposal, no proposal has been sanctioned to pay Ex-gratia pension to the petitioner. Petitioner has already filed Ext.P3 and in spite of the same, it is contended that no steps have been taken for payment of Ex-gratia pension. I heard the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation also. Since the petitioner has already filed Ext.P3 before the second WPC. 15852/08 K 2 respondent, I feel that there should be a direction to the second respondent to look into the complaint of the petitioner as voiced by Ext.P3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: There will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P3 in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of this Judgment before the second respondent as soon as it is made available to him. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy// PS to Judge