IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2272 of 2007(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY LAW OFFICER, SRI.RANJITH JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SRI.V.NALINAKSHAN, S/O. VASUDEVAN, SARADA BHAVAN, CHENKIKUNNU, KILIMANNUR P.O. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 2272/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.2720/05 DTD.26.12.05. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.23.4.04. P3. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE COMMON ORDER. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.2272 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the Managing Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, challenging Ext.P3 order of the Kerala Lok Ayuktha, wherein the Lok Ayuktha directed payment of arrears of salary to the respondent, who is a retired employee of the KSRTC, in accordance with the bipartite settlement of 13.4.1999 between the KSRTC and its employees in respect of revision of pay for the period from 1.1.1997 to 31.10.1999 to the 1st respondent. The liability of the KSRTC to pay arrears of salary in accordance with the said settlement was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ appeals, viz., W.A.No.1845/2008 and connected cases, in which the Division Bench held thus: 'Writ petitioners retired from the service during the period from 1997 onwards. On 13/4/1999 by bipartite settlement pay revision agreement was executed retrospectively from 1.3.1997. In the above there was a clause as follows:- “Pay revision arrears with effect from 1.3.1997 or opted date if any, will be credited to provident fund for a period of four years. Advances in respect of this amount from Provident Fund will be allowed only after that period. The I and II Interim Relief reckoned for fixation will be deducted from the arrears since the same are reckoned notionally for fixation alone. In case of retiring employees the arrears will be released at the time of retirement. (emphasis added).” 2. The amount has to be credited to the provident fund for four years and in case of retiring employees arrears will be released at the time of retirement. These retired employees were not paid its benefits on the basis of the pay revision settlement, even after eight years. Now it is 2 also submitted that negotiations of new pay revision settlement is going on. The Lok Ayukta has started proceedings for non-compliance of settlement by Ext.P3. The learned Judge held that before effecting new pay revision settlement the above arrears should be paid to the retired employees. The learned Judge also found that there is no justification in not paying the amount to the retired employees. We see no ground to interfere with the same. However, we make a rider that petitioners can enter into a new settlement but that shall not be implemented before the entire arrears on the basis of settlement are paid to the retired employees.' That being so, the KSRTC cannot now challenge Ext.P3 as unsustainable in so far as only the same relief which was granted by the Division Bench has been granted in Ext.P3 by the Lok Ayukta. Of course the learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC would point out that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is pending in appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has granted a stay also. But I am of opinion that in so far as the Division Bench decision has not yet been reversed, I have no other go but to follow that judgment to decide this case. Accordingly, following that judgment, I dismiss this writ petition. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge