IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2906 of 2006(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.N.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.P.K.NARAYANAN, KANNANKAREETH HOUSE, VETTIMUGAL POST, ETTUMANUR VIA., KOTTAYAM, (CONDUCTOR KSRTC, PALAI). BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC), CHIEF OFFICE AT TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., PALA. BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1-R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 2906 OF 2006 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT While discharging his responsibilities of a conductor,in a bus belonging to KSRTC, the petitioner fell inside the bus and suffered a fracture to one of his arms, as a result of the driver applying brakes to avert collusion with an autoriskshaw. On 5.4.2004, that matter was reported. Petitioner continued on leave and submitted medical certificates in support of such disability leave and ultimately reported for duty on 27.10.2004. He was not permitted to rejoin on the premise that clearance had to be obtained from the higher authorities in the establishment. That ultimately came in the form of Ext.P6 dated 9.12.2004, permitting him to be re-admitted to duty after leave from 1.4.2004 to 26.10.2004. Though Ext.P6 says that he is re- admitted to duty with effect from 9.12.2004, that statement is only a misnomer. What actually is meant in that memo dated 27.10.2004 ought to be, he is readmitted to duty with effect from 26.10.2004, the date on which he reported duty. The resultant Wpc 2906/2006 2 situation would be that the petitioner would be treated as one readmitted with effect from 26.10.2004, eligible to all benefits as one having discharged his duties and responsibilities. 2. But the crucial issue that pivotally arises, is as to whether the establishment acted illegally in rejecting the request of the petitioner for disability leave, on the ground that the application was belated. KSRTC has adopted the Kerala Service Rules(KSR). Rule 97 in Part I, KSR provides for such disability leave. That the petitioner is entitled to special disability leave as a result of occurrence in question is not in dispute. It cannot be disputed also. Going by Rule 97, Part I, KSR, the entitlement to special disability leave arising out of the manifestation of a disability relatable to any occurrence during discharge of official functions is a leave that would run to be co-terminus only with clearance of medical authority enabling the incumbent to rejoin duty. There may be cases where the disability does not manifest at the inception. Therefore, the rule itself takes care of the disabilities which manifest at a later point of time. That issue does not arise herein. There is nothing in Rule 97 or elsewhere in Part I, KSR which disentitles a person from availing and enjoying Wpc 2906/2006 3 special disability leave if the grounds of such leave are satisfied. Ext.R1(a) pressed into service is a reminder to the different departments under the establishment against abuse of such leave. It is true that such circular also states that such applications for leave ought to be made within two months. If applications for such leave are to be rejected merely on the basis of a time limit that may even tend to lead the rule to peril. The statutory rule does not prescribe any such limitation. Having adopted those statutory rules by a statutory mode in terms of the authority under the State Road Transport Corporations Act, it is impermissible for the Corporation to further, by circulars, restrict the time limit to make application for special disability leave. On facts, Ext.P3 shows that on 27.10.2004, the petitioner applied for readmission to duty. He states therein that he was on medical leave until then. The prescription in Ext.R1(a) as to time limit even if sustainable, cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner. When the accident was duly reported and he was on leave, the establishment does not have a case that he had unauthorisedly absented himself following the accident. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed, Wpc 2906/2006 4 quashing Ext.P6 and P8 and directing that the petitioner shall be granted special disability leave from 1.4.2004 to 9.12.2004 or in the alternative, such leave as may be one, from 1.4.2004 to 26.10.2004, and by treating him as having been readmitted to duty with effect from 26.10.2004, in which event, he will be entitled to the benefit of such readmission to duty. All consequential benefits accruing on the basis of this judgment shall be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/14/7