IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 OP.No. 3865 of 2002(I) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.D.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI (RETD. SUPERINTENDENT,KSRTC),ALAKKAT MANA,PUTHENCHIRA P.O THRISSUR,PIN-680 682 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.K.P.SREELAJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, EAST FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1.1.2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No.3865/02. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE REPEVANT PAGES OF AGREEMENT. P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.15313/00 OF THIS COURT. P3. COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD.15.9.2000. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.1L5.12.2000. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.C.C.NO.1210.2000 DTD.23.1.2001. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.1.2002. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. To Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.3865 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a former employee of the KSRTC. He retired from service on 31.10.1994. In this original petition he has raised a grievance regarding pay fixation. According to him, as per Ext.P1 agreement dated 28.12.1990, the seniors who were drawing lesser pay than their juniors were entitled to claim parity in fixation of pay. The petitioner submits that as on 1.3.1991 the petitioner was drawing Rs.2535/- as basic pay, whereas his junior, one Sri.T.N.Kamalakaran Nair, was drawing the basis pay of Rs.2735/-. The petitioner is stated to have filed a representation seeking parity in pay. He approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 15313/2000 wherein this Court directed the KSRTC to dispose of his representation, by Ext.P2 judgment. The same was not implemented. The petitioner filed a contempt case, pursuant to which an order was passed without hearing the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the contempt case directing the respondent to hear the petitioner on 14.2.2000 and to pass fresh orders thereafter. Thereupon, the o.p.3865/02 2 petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard and Ext.P6 order was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order in this original petition. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that in Ext.P6 there is no consideration of the petitioner's case on merits. 3. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSRTC also. 4. From Ext.P6 I find that the petitioner's contention has been considered and has been rejected on the ground of delay and laches. It is specifically found in Ext.P6 that for claiming parity in fixation of pay, the KSRTC had fixed the last date as 31.8.1996. It is stated therein that a large number of pensioners had applied for parity in fixation of pay within the prescribed time limit, which have been considered and disposed of. The petitioner did not file any application in that regard within the stipulated time. The petitioner's only contention regarding the same was that he was unaware of the requirement, which did not find favour with the KSRTC. Further, in Ext.P6 it is specifically stated that for deciding the question of pay fixation, the concerned employee had to specifically state the name and details of the o.p.3865/02 3 junior who was drawing a higher scale of pay, which he has not stated in his representation. On a consideration of Ext.P6 I am unable to persuade myself to hold that the reasons stated in Ext.P6 to reject the claim of the petitioner are arbitrary or unreasonable. Specific reasons are stated in Ext.P6, which cannot be stated to unsustainable. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. To Judge o.p.3865/02 4 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. =============== O.P.No.3865 of 2002-I =============== J U D G M E N T 1st January, 2009