IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20683 of 2006(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. V.S.VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, SENIOR ASSISTANT, K.S.R.T.C. CHIEF OFFICE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. B.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, K.S.R.T.C., NEDUMANGAD DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. P.E.SALIM, SUPERINTENDENT, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL WORKS, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. V.RAVEENDRAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY DEPOT. 5. K.DASAN, TICKET ISSUER, KSRTC, VELLANAD DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. S.RAVEENDRAN ASARI, U.D.CLERK (RETIRED ON 31.3.06), KSRTC, VELLANAD DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. D.VIMALA DEVI, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KSRTC, VELLANAD DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN, SMT.ACHA RANO MATHEWS.T. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.20683/2006 K RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER (OAD), K.S.R.T.C. TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. VELLANAD DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. NEDUMANGAD DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. MECHANICAL ENGINEER (WORKS), K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL WORKS, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHARAM. 7. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. CITY DEPOT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R7 BY ADV.SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20683/2006 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 2/11/2000. P2: COPY OF THAT MEMORANDUM NO.OAD1-000019/2002 DTD. 10/05/2002. P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 23/07/2002 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF LETTER NO.G1-1243/2002/VLND DTD. 24/07/2002 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.OAD1-000019/2002 DTD. 9/09/2002. P6: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 31/01/2006 IN O.P.NO.29479 OF 2002. P7: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.OAD.1.000019/2002 DTD. 24/06/2006. P8: COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.OAD.1.000019/2002 DTD. 20/07/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.20683/2006-K ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the orders passed by the second respondent resulting in recovery of various amounts from them. They were working under the fourth respondent during the year 2000 at the Vellanad Depot of the Corporation. It is stated that there were acute shortage of clerical staff in the Vellanad Depot during that year and, hence, audit of Way Bills fell in arrears for so many months. In order to clear off the work, the Corporation had adopted a method by engaging the employees on duty surrender basis. 2. Accordingly, an arrangement was made as per Ext.P1 and the petitioners were granted compensation with regard to their claim for payment for the additional work done by them. But, thereafter, on the basis of an audit objection, the amount paid to the petitioners were sought to be recovered which was challenged before this Court in O.P.No.29479/2002. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 Judgment. In Ext.P6, this Court directed as follows:- “There will be a direction to the first respondent to look into Exts.P3 and P4 series with notice to the petitioners and W.P.(C). No.20683/2006 -:2:- pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, adverting to the contentions taken by the petitioners.” The first respondent therein is the Managing Director of the Corporation. Thereafter, it appears that the second respondent herein has disposed of the matter as per Ext.P7. Ext.P8 is the consequent order passed by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer under the second respondent. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same goes against the directions of this Court in Ext.P6 Judgment as the Managing Director cannot delegate the responsibility to dispose of the representations to the second respondent. It is further contended that the petitioners had performed audit of Way Bills out of office hours on duty surrender basis and they are eligible to get compensation for the same. The petitioners have taken a ground in Ground 'E' with regard to the manner in which the representations have been disposed of. They have raised an objection against the second respondent disposing of the representations in violation of the directions in Ext.P6 Judgment. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed, this aspect is not answered at all. W.P.(C). No.20683/2006 -:3:- 4. Mainly it is contended that the Audit Wing has over looked various aspects pointed out by the petitioners and the Office Orders in that regard and, therefore, there is no point in the matter being dealt with by the Audit Wing itself. I find force in the above submission. Apart from it, as per the directions in Ext.P6 Judgment the Managing Director ought to have heard the petitioners and he should have passed an order after adverting to the contentions made by the petitioners in the various representations directed to be disposed of by this Court. Therefore, Exts.P7 and P8 cannot be sustained and they are, accordingly, quashed. 5. There will be a direction to the first respondent, namely, the Managing Director of the Corporation to conduct a re-hearing with notice to the petitioners and take appropriate decision on the representations submitted by the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The orders passed thereon will be communicated to the petitioners. 6. It is submitted that by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 have already retired from service and the amounts have been adjusted from the D.C.R.G amount. If the orders to be passed by the W.P.(C). No.20683/2006 -:4:- Managing Director are in their favour, then they will be entitled for proper reimbursement of the amount. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms