IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 507 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.S. JOY, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, MANDAPATHIKUNNEL HOUSE, KURAVILANGAD P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 533, (PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MANDAPATHIKUNNEL HOUSE, KIZHAPARAYARA P.O., PALA-VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT) BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SRI.K.I.SAGEER.. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 023. 2. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 575. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.507 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retiree from the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. He is aggrieved by the reckoning of qualifying service effected for the purpose of determination of his pensionery benefits. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to get reckoned his provisional service rendered with effect from 3.1.1967 to 3.12.1968 and also the regular service rendered with effect from 4.12.1968 to 31.5.1997. In fact, the said request of the petitioner was not properly considered by the first respondent while issuing Ext.P6. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 representation before the first respondent. It is still pending. It is aggrieved by the inordinate delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P7 that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Obviously, Ext.P7 representation filed by the petitioner raising his grievance against Ext.P6 is pending before the first respondent. W.P.(C) NO.507/2011 2 In fact, Ext.P7 was filed by the petitioner pointing out certain mistakes crept in Ext.P6. To substantiate his contentions with respect to the mistakes crept in Ext.P6, the petitioner has relied on Ext.P1 service records. In the said circumstances, without making any observations as to the merits of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While considering Ext.P7, the first respondent shall look into the original of Ext.P1service records as well. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.507/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.507/2011 4