IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23624 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. T.N.MADHAVAN, S/O.VELU THAREPARAMBIL HOUSE, PANANGAD PO., ERNAKULAM (INSPECTOR RETIRED ON 30.9.2002 FROM ERNAKULAM. 2. K.V.GOKULLAN, S/O.VELU, ANOOP NILAYAM KOLLERIPARAMBU, CHALICKAVATTOM VENNALA PO., ERNAKULAM, (MECHANIC RETIRED ON 30.6.2006 FROM ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTOOOOO BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 23624 OF 2008 K ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Case of the petitioners in brief is as follows. Petitioners are retired employees of KSRTC. While on service the petitioners were proceeded against for the charges of attempting to set at fire a bus on 25.5.1994. They were placed under suspension from 21.6.1994 to 1.6.1996. In the enquiry conducted by the department, they were found not guilty. They were acquitted in the criminal case in this regard. By Ext.P2, it is ordered that the period of suspension can be treated as eligible leave. Petitioners preferred appeal. By Ext.P3, the appellate authority directed that the period of suspension can be treated as duty only for pensionary benefits. Petitioners preferred revision petition which was dismissed. Then petitioners preferred a writ petition in this Court and Ext.P5 judgment was rendered. By Ext.P6, it was ordered to limit the payments during the period of suspension as 80% of the pay and allowances eligible minus whatever subsistence allowance drawn. Petitioner challenged WPC.23624/08 : 2 : order of the Chief Office Audit party dated 19.5.2008 which has been subsequently produced along with I.A.No.11397/08. Petitioners seek a declaration that the petitioners are entitled for 80% of wages and allowances minus subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned standing counsel. A perusal of Ext.P9 would show that the Corporation is prepared to comply with Ext.P6 and a sum of Rs.28,334/- is found payable to the 2nd petitioner. Ext.P9 is passed without taking into consideration of Ext.P6. Accordingly, Ext.P9 dated 19.5.2008 is quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to disburse the amount of Rs.28,334/- to the 2nd petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be a further direction to the 1st respondent to disburse to the 1st petitioner also the amount due to him as per Ext.P6 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks