IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10271 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.C.RAJAN S/O.KUNJU PILLAI, AGED 63 YRS, CONDUCTOR (RETD.), KSRTC, CHANGANASSERY AND RESIDING AT KAZHUNNUKUZHY, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.REP: BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. ' 2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, CHENGANASSERY. BY SRI. K. PRABHAKARAN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.10271 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner in this writ petition is a retired Conductor of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation who retired on 31.5.1998. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that for computation of his retirement benefits, his provisional service in the KSRTC for the period from 22.11.1983 to 29.8.1988 has not been reckoned. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation in this regard. However, the same was rejected by Ext.P8. The petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court in Idicula Abraham V. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [2005(3) KLT SN 67 Case N0.79] and he further submits that by Ext.P6 order the KSRTC has also accepted the position of law as declared in Idicula Abraham's case. Therefore, the petitioner seeks re- consideration of this case in terms of the judgment in Idicula Abraham's case and Ext.P6. W.P.(c)No.10271/08 2 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Corporation also. From a reading of Ext.P8, I find that there is no consideration of the petitioner's case in accordance with the judgment in Idicula Abraham's case although Ext.P6 order has been referred to there. Therefore, I am of opinion that the 1st respondent should re-consider the matter in terms of that judgment also. Accordingly, Ext.P8 is quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the matter in the light of the judgment in Idicula Abraham's case. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.10271/08 3