IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 33094 of 2007(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- S.SASIDHARAN POTTY (SUPERINTENDENT KSRTC, CHIEF OFFICE RTD VOLUNTARILYN ON 30.6.2005) PUTHEN MADAM, THIRUNAKKARA TEMPLE ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 33159 OF 2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).Nos.33094/2007-M, 33159/2007-V, 33167/2007-W, 33174/2007-Y & 33183/2007-A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of November, 2007. ORDER OF REFERENCE 1.Not admitted. 2.Three of the captioned writ petitions are by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The other two are by two retired employees of that establishment. 3.By judgment dated 20-11-2002 in W.A.289/2001, the directions issued on 18-10-2001 on C.M.P.No.604/2001 were made absolute in the light of the order dated 29-8- 2002 of the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Nos.446-454/2002. WP(C)33094/07 & con.cases -: 2 :- 4.Clause 5 among the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment is that the retirement benefits would be disbursed strictly on the basis of the date of retirement, unless otherwise ordered by the order of this Court. 5.After the aforesaid judgment, in W.A.No.1775/2004, the Division Bench of this Court issued judgment on 28-9- 2004 modifying the order passed by the learned single Judge thereby directing the KSRTC to release all the retiral benefits due to the appellant in that case, who sought such relief based on the fact that the marriage of his daughter was scheduled to be solemnized. In the later judgment dated 6th July, 2007 in W.A.No.1642/2007 and connected case, the Division Bench specifically stated that marriage of children is not a sufficient ground to upset the priority list, barring the ground of serious illness or other calamities. 6.WP(C).Nos.33094 and 33159 of 2007 filed by the WP(C)33094/07 & con.cases -: 3 :- erstwhile employees are on grounds referable to marriage of children. If I were to apply the ratio of the later decision of the Division Bench, i.e. W.A.No.1642/2007 and connected case, these writ petitions have to fail. 7.The three writ petitions filed by the KSRTC are instituted challenging different orders passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta. A reading of those orders shows that arguments were addressed before the Lok Ayukta as to the effect of the judgments of the Division Bench. 8.Incidentally, I may also notice that the Lok Ayukta referred to the two judgments of this Court, Director, Economic and Statistics v. Subramanian Pillai [2007 (3) KLT 366] and WP(C).No.19040/2007 (Ext.P6 in WP(C). No.33167/2007) to notice that there is an apparent conflict between those decisions. 9.In view of the aforesaid, in my considered view, an WP(C)33094/07 & con.cases -: 4 :- authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench on the aforesaid matters would be necessary, having regard to the apparent conflicts as noticed above. Hence, these matters are referred to the Division Bench for further consideration. The office will place the files before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/