IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25139 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- G.DEVARAJAN,S/O.GOPALAN, SULOCHANA VILASAM, TC 3/2580,MARAPPALAM,PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004. (VEHICLE SUPERVISOR,RETIRED ON 30.11.2002, FROM VIKAS BHAVAN UNIT). BY ADV. SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023. 2. ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,KSRTC VIKAS BHAVAN UNIT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY STANDING COUNSEL SHRI V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25139 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to grant one additional increment and consequential revision of pension on the basis of the pay revision agreement enforced in the KSRTC in the year 2006. The petitioner retired from the service of the Corporation on 30.11.2002, while working as Vehicle Supervisor in the Vikas Bhavan Unit. Exhibit P1 is the pension payment order. 2. It is averred in paragraph 2 of the Writ petition that as per paragraph XII of the pay revision agreement which came into force in 2006, it is provided that regular employees who rendered daily wage service during the period between 1.1.1972 and 31.7.1979 will be allowed one additional increment in order to compensate their loss and their pay and pension will be revised accordingly. The same has been produced as Exhibit P2 herein. 3. The service particulars of the petitioner show that the petitioner entered service through the Public Service Commission as a driver on 15.6.1977 and continued on daily wages till W.P.(C)No.25139/10 -2- 31.7.1979. He was absorbed into regular establishment only from 1.8.1979. Accordingly, it is submitted that he will consequently come within the parameters of the conditions provided in Exhibit P2. 4. Exhibit P3 is the representation submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the 1st respondent may be directed to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P3 in the light of the conditions provided in Exhibit P2, within a time frame. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P3 in the light of the conditions provided in Exhibit P2 and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the decision is in favour of the petitioner, consequential orders revising the pension will be issued and arrears of pension also will be disbursed. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn