IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 94 of 2011(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.SASIDHARAN NAIR,S/O.K.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, ARAMAM, NAITHANMOOLA, PERUKAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM(CONDUCTOR SPL.GRADE,KSRTC, PAPPANAMCODE DEPOT-RETIRED ON 31-3-2010). BY ADV. SRI.ANANDARAJAN.N RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 3. THE PERSONNEL OFFICER(PENSION), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, PAPPANAMCODE. R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC FOR KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 94 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who retired from the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'), filed this writ petition mainly seeking a direction to sanction and disburse his retiral benefits. The petitioner has further grievance regarding non-regularisation of leave for the period from 12.12.2004 to 11.10.2007 and from 28.4.2008 to 3/2010. The further grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the non-disbursement of the amount due under the Provident Fund, the Staff Welfare Fund and the pay revision arrears based on 1997 and 2006 pay revision. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel. In the matter of disbursement of retiral benefits payable to the retirees from the service of the Corporation it is being governed by the directions of this Court in W.A No.289 of 2010. Therefore, no separate order need be given for its disbursement as it would be disbursed to him according to his turn in the light of the directions in W.A No.289 of 2010. According to the petitioner, on account of non-regularisation of leave for the period from 12.12.2004 to 11.10.07 and from W.P.(C) No. 94 of 2011 -2- 28.4.08 to 3/2010 he is not getting monthly pension whilst being given only the provisional pension. In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the question of regularization of the leave availed by the petitioner while he was in service during the aforesaid period expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation regarding the merits of the contentions of the petitioner on this claim. 3. Subject to the decision on the same, the question of granting the pension to which the petitioner is entitled has also to be taken up for consideration expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month thereafter. Since the petitioner has retried on 31.3.2010, the respondents are bound to disburse the benefits payable to the petitioner under the Provident Fund and also under the Staff Welfare Fund. Therefore, there will a direction to the respondents to take immediate steps for the purpose of disbursement of benefits due under the Provident Fund and also under the Staff Welfare Fund to the petitioner, in accordance with law. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As regards, the grievance of the petitioner relating to the W.P.(C) No. 94 of 2011 -3- non-disbursement of pay revision benefits in terms of Bipartite Settlement executed between the Corporation and its employees, there will a direction to the respondents to quantify and disburse the benefits, if any, payable to the petitioner in the light of the relevant Bipartite Settlement and also taking note of the date of his retirement. Such quantification and disbursement of pay revision benefits, if any, shall be effected within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case of failure on the part of the respondents to disburse the amount legally payable and found due, in terms of this judgment within the time stipulated above, it would carry interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum. Though the petitioner has also raised grievance with respect to denial of promotion based on the gradation list of conductors as on 1.4.1988 on the ground of being a highly belated claim and also in the absence of proper pleadings the said claim deserves no consideration based on vague pleadings. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK W.P.(C) No. 94 of 2011 -4-