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. 5544 of 2005(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- 1. M.MATHAI, RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ANKAMALY, RESIDING AT MULLOLY HOUSE, VELLARAPPALLY SOUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. K.N.NARAYANA PILLAI, RETIRED SUPERINTENDENT,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KURUNGATTU HOUSE, KEEZHILLAM, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY MR. K.R.B.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.V.MADHUSUDHANAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ANKAMALY. 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.5544/2005-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. PLE.4/88868/95 DT. 30/04/96 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. S2-488/96/ALY. DT. 21/09/1996 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALUVA. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PLE4/024660/99 DT. 11/04/2000 OF THE R.1. SERVED ON THE P.2. BY THE ASST. TRANSPORT OFFICER, THODUPUZHA AS PER ENDORSEMENT NO. PL2-101/2000/TDPA DT. 11/04/2000. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. E1/1164/2000/ANK DT. 13/04/2000 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE P.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE R.1. IN O.P. NO.19637/00 DT. 24/06/2003. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.P. NO. 19637/00 DT. 15/09/03. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO. 19637/00 DT. 16/06/2004. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. PL7/142364/03 DT. 05/08/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. PL7-142364/03 DT. 18/08/04 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PL7-142364/03 DT. 09/09/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E1-935/04/ANK DT. 01/11/2004 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PA6/035229/04 DT. 09/11/04 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 5544 OF 2005 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT On the premise that the petitioners were given parity in the 1990 scales revision with that of one Sri K.V.N.Nair, the employer KSRTC revised the pay of the petitioners as if there was no parity fixation of pay and ordered for recovery of excess pay drawn from 1.4.1996. The petitioners challenged that by filing O.P.19637 of 2000. In the counter affidavit, KSRTC contended in that case that even though the petitioners were given parity fixation in 1990 scale revision, with that of Sri K.V.N.Nair, on further scrutiny, it was found that the petitioners were drawing lesser in all the pre-revised scale than their junior and that the junior was drawing higher pay solely due to his length of service even though in another category. In answer to that counter affidavit, the petitioners filed reply affidavit contending that following the 1990 pay revision which became effective from 2.2.1990, what was relevant was the pay that the seniors and junior were drawing on that date. They, on facts pleaded that on Wpc 5544/2005 2 2.2.1990, the relevant date, the petitioners were holding the post of Special Assistants and were drawing Rs.1305/- in the pre 1990 scale and that on that date, their junior Mr.Narayanan Nair was only a U.D.Clerk, a post lower to that of Special Assistant and he was drawing only Rs.1,284/-. This assertion of the petitioners stood uncontroverted at the hearing of that writ petition and accordingly Ext.P7 judgment was issued quashing the refixation of pay of the petitioners. However, to exclude any further controversy, the KSRTC was given the liberty to take action for refixation if they have a version different from what is noted in Ext.P7 judgment from the reply affidavit of the writ petitioners. However, it was clearly ordered that such an action shall be only with notice to the petitioners. 2. Though Ext.P8 and P9 notices were issued for hearing the petitioners after Ext.P7 judgment, those notices do not contain any version of the KSRTC different from what is stated in the reply affidavit of the petitioners in Ext.P7 case. However, the impugned Ext.P10 is issued on the self same reason as stated in the decision that led to Ext.P7 writ petition. Ext.P7 also does not, in any manner, disclose any statement of fact contrary to the assertion upheld in Ext.P7 judgment that as on 2.2.1990, the date of effect of 1990 pay revision, the petitioners were drawing Wpc 5544/2005 3 salary higher than that drawn by Sri Narayanan Nair and that while the petitioners were then Special Assistants, Sri Narayanan Nair was only a U.D Clerk, a post lower to that of Special Assistant. Therefore the impugned order is not issued on any version different from what has been noted by this court and upheld in Ext.P7 judgment. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Ext.P10 and its consequential Ext.P11 are quashed. As a consequence, the petitioners will be paid all the amounts due on restoration of the pay on the basis of Ext.P2. All arrears of salary due on that count shall be paid. The revised pensionary benefits on such basis shall also be sanctioned and disbursed without in any manner impairing or cancelling the stepping up, granted in Ext.P2. The pensionary benefits sanctioned in Ext.P12 shall be revised accordingly and all pensionary and other monetary benefits accruing by virtue of the directions herein above shall be released within a outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is so ordered. No costs. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/9/7