IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 8383 of 2005(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.MUHAMMED, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. BAPPUTTY, PANNIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KOODALLUR, (VIA) ANAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.CHANDRASEKHAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, PONANI. R1 & R2 BY MR.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.8383/2005-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PENSION BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PLB.3/020843/97 DTD. 23/06/1997 OF THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E1-852/97/ONI DTD. 09/06/1997. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PENSION PAYMENT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PETITIONER'S PENSION BOOK. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PENSION BOOK OF SHRI. KUNHAN. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 01/10/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 28/06/2004 IN O.P. NO. 24217/02 ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PA2(PLB12) 51640/99 DTD. 18/12/2004 OF THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 8383 OF 2005 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner and Sri K P U Kunhan retired from the service of KSRTC with a reckonable qualifying service of 23 years for determination of pension. The last pay drawn by both of them was the same, even going by the counter affidavit. However, while fixing the pension, the petitioner has been granted only Rs.2,588/- with effect from 1.7.1997 following the 1997 scales of pay while Sri Kunhan was granted Rs.2,736/-. While the petitioner challenges this disparity, the respondents stand to state in the counter affidavit that Sri Kunhan had exercised the option to come over to 1997 scales with effect from 1.3.1997 while the petitioner exercised such option only with effect from 9.6.1997 and hence while calculating the average emoluments there is a difference in the benefit that finally accrues by way of pension in terms of 1997 scale. In an earlier round, Ext.P8 judgment was issued directing consideration of Ext.P7, wherein the petitioner has pointedly stated that the average emoluments Wpc 8383/2005 2 of the petitioner would be more than that of Sri Kunhan. That assertion is at serial No.5 in the last paragraph of Ext.P7 wherein different relevant personal particulars of the petitioner and Kunhan are stated. Not only that the impugned decision does not proceed on any ground refuting those service particulars, even the counter affidavit does not contain any averment disputing the assertion of the petitioner in Ext.P7, a document produced along with the writ petition, that his average emoluments was Rs.2,579.66 as against Rs.2,669/- drawn by Sri Kunhan. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned decision and action of the respondents do not stand and it is accordingly ordered that the monthly pension of the petitioner shall stand revised as Rs.2736/- per month with effect from 1.7.1997. His DCRG and CVP shall also be revised on this basis and arrears in that regard shall be disbursed within a period of five months form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/9/7