IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14464 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S. VIJAYALAKSHMI, 'DWARAKA', AEROM, THADUKADU P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TVM. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 14464 of 2010-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the widow of late Shri B. Rajendran Nair who was working as a Conductor on a provisional basis, in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, in the Kottarakkara Depot from 26.6.1980. 2. There was a decision by the Corporation to regularise the service of the conductors working on temporary basis. Accordingly, a list of provisional conductors was submitted to the Government seeking their regularisation. The name of the petitioner's husband was included as serial No.386. 3. The Government passed an order granting regularisation only on 5.3.2001, obviously due to the administrative delay. Therefore, the order of regularisation could not benefit the deceased husband of the petitioner who died on 6.1.2000. After the death of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner approached the Corporation for grant of various benefits including family pension. This Court by Ext.P7 judgment, directed consideration of the claim. Later, a representation was filed as Ext.P9 also, but no action is being taken in the matter. wpc 14464/2010 2 4. The stand taken by the Corporation in the statement, is that the petitioner's husband is not covered by the Scheme Ext.R1(a), as he died before that. Regularisation has taken effect only from the date of the order, viz. 5.3.2001 and those persons who are not in service as on that date, cannot be regularised. It is therefore pointed out that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband's details were forwarded to the Government for regularisation. The administrative delay in the matter has resulted in denial of benefit to the late husband of the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that this is a matter which the authorities have to consider sympathetically. 6. The Corporation is bound by the Government Order Ext.R1(a). Therefore, if any variation is required, the petitioner will have to move the Government in the matter. If an appropriate representation is filed by the petitioner before the Government along with a copy of the judgment seeking for the benefit by way of family pension and the like, in spite of the fact that the husband of the petitioner died prior to the issuance of Ext.R1(a), the Government will consider the same in accordance with law. The petitioner will file such a representation within a period of one month from today and the representation will be disposed of within a further period of four wpc 14464/2010 3 months, after hearing the petitioner. A copy of the writ petition also will be produced before the Government. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/