IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2677 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.A.PAILY, AGED 56 YEARS, RETIRED INSPECTOR GRADE I KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC) PULLAMPRA PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, MONIPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN SRI.K.N.VIKRAMATHITHYAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KUMILY DEPOT, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NEYYATTINKARA DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR KSRTC, THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SC FOR KSRTC SRI.V.V.N.NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.2677 OF 2010 (H) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired from the service of the respondent on 31.1.2009. Non payment of pension, claim for time bound higher grade and the pendency of Ext.P12 revision filed against Ext.P11 order confirming Ext.P7 are the three issues raised in this writ petition. 2. In so far as the non-payment of pensionary benefits is concerned, the Standing Counsel on instructions submit that the pension papers have been forwarded to the 2nd respondent and that it is for the 2nd respondent to expedite the disbursement of pensionary benefits. This, the 2nd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 3. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for time bound higher grade is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner has taken up this claim before the first respondent by filing Ext.P6 and the first respondent is yet to pass orders on Ext.P6. Therefore I direct the first respondent to consider the claim made by the petitioner WPC.No. 2677/2010 :2 : in Ext.P6 and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. 4. The third issue is regarding Ext.P12 revision. Ext.P12 is the revision filed by the petitioner before the 4th respondent, aggrieved by Ext.P11 order confirming Ext.P7 issued by the disciplinary authority. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P12 it is directed that the 4th respondent Tribunal shall expedite the disposal of Ext.P12 revision with notice to the parties and as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the respective authorities for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 2677/2010 :3 :