IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11783 of 2005(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.H. KANI, S/O. SAIDMUHAMMED HUSSAN, KARIPPAYIL HOUSE, PETTA, KANJIRAPPILLI (RETIRED CONDUCTOR K.S.R.T.C.) BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DEPOT TRANSPORT OFFICE, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPPORT CORPORATION, PALA. 2. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 11783/2005. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER NO.IAI/P 11.2002.03 DT. 20.12.2002. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 11783 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner approached this court with two prayers. They are as follows: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to assess and disburse the arrears of salary due to the petitioner because of pay revision, taking note of all the increments due without any delay. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the respondent to forthwith disburse the amount of Rs.17,855/- recovered from his gratuity, as per Ext.P1 with interest.” 2. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. Regarding the second prayer, it is stated as follows: “Regarding the recovery of subsistence allowance paid, it may be seen that the above recovery was made as per the provisions of KSR Rules 55 Part I which permits for the recovery of excess subsistence allowance paid. The petitioner was placed under suspension in 1994, during which period the provisions of KSR was applicable to the employees of the KSRTC on matters of payment of subsistence allowance.” There is no challenge as such to Ext.P1. It is under Ext.P1 that recoveries are directed to be effected. It is stated that recovery of excess subsistence WPC. 11783/05. 2 allowance is bad. There is nothing on record to show that how the petitioner would be justified in contending that the recoveries are bad. I there reject the second prayer. 3. As far as prayer No.1, in the counter affidavit it is stated as follows: “As to the request for payment of arrears consequent to the pay revision, it is submitted that the above claim is under challenge before the Honourable Supreme Court and hence the grievance of the petitioner will be looked into in accordance with the final disposal of the SLP pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.” It is pointed out that the matter is still pending consideration before the Supreme Court. It is submitted that nobody has been paid arrears. Therefore, while rejecting prayer No.2, regarding prayer No.1 it is directed that the case of the petitioner for arrears of pay revision will be considered by the authority depending on the outcome of the decision of the supreme Court within a period of one month from the date of the decision of the Apex Court. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb