IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1141 of 2009(E) --------------------------------- (JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.2504/2005 DATED 04/02/2009) .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER IN THE W.P.(C): ------------------------------------------------------------ M.A.KUNJU MOHAMMED, RETIRED SERGEANT, K.S.R.T.CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT AZHIKKAKATH HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY MR. K.R.B.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR. V.MADHUSUDHANAN. RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT IN THE W.P.(C): ------------------------------------------------------------------ THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. 'C.R' K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1141 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The point that arises for decision in this case is whether the service rendered by the appellant in the Central Reserve Police Force can be reckoned for the purpose of computing the terminal benefits payable from the K.S.R.T.C. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant was working in the C.R.P.F from 1.7.1964 to 26.6.1976. He was discharged from the said Force on his request. Later he joined the K.S.R.T.C on 24.8.1978. He retired from the service of the K.S.R.T.C on 31.1.2000. The terminal benefits payable to him, including D.C.R.G, were sanctioned as per Exhibit P3 order. The service rendered in the Military will be reckoned for pensionary benefits under the State Government, even if the incumbent was discharged from service on request. The said benefit was extended to the persons who served under the C.R.P.F also as per Exhibit P4 dated 7.3.2009. On the strength of those orders, the WA.1141/09 2 petitioner submitted Exhibit P5 representation before the K.S.R.T.C, praying that the service rendered by him under the C.R.P.F may also be reckoned for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits. As per the direction of this Court, the K.S.R.T.C considered the matter and by Exhibit P9 order dated 14.1.2005, rejected the appellant's claim. According to the K.S.R.T.C, it has not adopted Exhibit P4 Government Order. Challenging Exhibit P9 and seeking consequential reliefs, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, upholding the contention of the K.S.R.T.C that it has not adopted Exhibit P4, dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal is filed. 3. The appellant submitted that by virtue of the regulation making power of the K.S.R.T.C under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules are adopted as a regulation by the K.S.R.T.C. Reference is made to Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, which enables the K.S.R.T.C inter alia, to frame regulation governing service conditions of officers and other employees of the Corporation. Once the provisions of K.S.R are adopted, the same will apply with amendments and decisions made by the WA.1141/09 3 Government from time to time, it is submitted. The appellant made special reference to Rule 11 of Part-III of K.S.R, which reads as follows: “11. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 10, the Government may, (1) declare that any specified kind of service rendered shall qualify for pension; and (2) in individual cases, and subject to such conditions as they may think fit to impose in each case, allow service rendered by an employee to count for pension.” 4. The above Rule enables the Government to declare any kind of service rendered by government servants as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Invoking that power, the Government have issued Exhibit P4 order. So, according to the appellant, the said decision of the Government should also be treated as part of the provisions of K.S.R. So, the appellant is entitled to have the service rendered by him under the C.R.P.F reckoned as qualifying service. So, he prayed for allowing the Writ Appeal. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for K.S.R.T.C also. WA.1141/09 4 6. The provisions of the K.S.R specify what are the qualifying services to be reckoned for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits. Rule 11 of Part-III K.S.R enables the Government to declare any other service than those specifically mentioned also as qualifying service. When the K.S.R.T.C adopts the said Rule, it should be read as enabling the K.S.R.T.C to declare other services also as qualifying service. In this case, it is not in dispute that, the K.S.R.T.C has not taken any specific decision concerning the reckoning of service rendered by its employees in the C.R.P.F. So, in the absence of any decision in this regard by the K.S.R.T.C. invoking Rule 11 of Part-III K.S.R, we feel that the claim of the appellant cannot be upheld. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE vgs.