IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 2775 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25997/2005 Dated 03/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC: ------------------------------------------ THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC: -------------------------------------- P.T.RAMAKRISHNAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, KSRTC, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2775 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 3rd July, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.25997 of 2005, the first respondent therein preferred the instant writ appeal. The sole respondent herein preferred the abovementioned writ petition praying, in substance, that the period of service from 4.9.2001 to 4.2.2002 be treated as a period on which the writ petitioner/respondent herein was on duty with the appellant herein and for other consequential reliefs incidental to the abovementioned declaration. 2. The sole respondent herein is an employee of the appellant herein which is a statutory corporation controlled by the State of Kerala. The services of the respondent herein were lent to another body known as Centre for Development of Imaging Technology in the year 1999. It is not very clear from the records of W.A. No.2775 of 2009 - 2 - this Court as to what exactly is the legal status of the abovementioned Centre for Development of Imaging Technology. 3. The abovementioned Centre for Development of Imaging Technology which was a party respondent to the writ petition from which the instant writ appeal arises is not made a party to the instant appeal. 4. The Centre for Development of Imaging Technology (borrowing agency) relieved the respondent herein from service by its letter dated 25.9.2001 and in so relieving, the said borrowing agency purported to relieve the respondent with effect from an anterior date, i.e. 4.9.2001, a practice which is doubtful in legal validity. At any rate, we do not propose to go into the said question in the instant appeal. On such relief, the respondent herein admittedly reported to duty to the appellant herein on 8.10.2001. But he was not permitted to join duty with the appellant on the ground that certain remittances pertaining to W.A. No.2775 of 2009 - 3 - the contribution towards the pension of the respondent and leave salary were not made by the borrowing agency or by the respondent employee as it appears from the relevant Rules that such remittance is required to be made by either of them. 5. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal came to the conclusion that the decision of the appellant herein as evidenced by Ext.P2 cannot be sustained for the various reasons given in the judgment under appeal and hence this appeal. 6. Apart from anything else, in our view, the instant appeal is required to be dismissed on the ground that the appeal is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The borrowing agency which was a party respondent to the writ petition is not made a party to the instant appeal. In the absence of such a party, an effective adjudication of the issue, in our view, is not possible. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that the judgment under appeal does not call for any interference in the W.A. No.2775 of 2009 - 4 - abovementioned factual background of the case. We are in total agreement with the reasons given in the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns