IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18031 of 2006(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. A.MOHANAN NAIR, CONDUCTOR GRADE-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CENTRAL DEPOT, RESIDING AT: GOKULAM, BHAJANAMADAM ROAD, PEYAD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573. 2. N.SIVANANDAN, CONDUCTOR GRADE-II, KATTAKADA DEPOT, RESIDING AT: S.N.MANDIRAM, ARUVIKKARA, KOOVALASSARY. 3. K.S.SREEVALSAN, CONDUCTOR GRADE-II, VENJARAMOODU DEPOT, RESIDING AT: SREENIKETHAN, THYCAUD, VENJARAMOODU.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. G.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, CONDUCTOR GRADE-II, NEDUMANGAD DEPOT, RESIDING AT: AMBADI, BHAJANAMADAM ROAD, PEYAD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573. 5. G.MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR, CONDUCTOR GRADE-II, PAPPANAMCODE DEPOT, RESIDING AT: SREENILAYAM, VP-IV 254-B, SRA 4(1), SANTHI NAGAR, MARKET JUNCTION, PEYAD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573. 6. S.VENUGOPAL, CONDUCTOR GRADE-II, POOVAR DEPOT, RESIDING AT: SREEMANDIRAM, KUZHIVILAKONAM, KOTTUKAL.P.O, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. B.GOPICHANDRAN NAIR, CONDUCTOR GRADE-II, VIKAS BHAVAN DEPOT, RESIDING AT: MANIVEENA, KATCHANI, KARAKULAM.P.O, THIRUVANANYTHAPURAM-695 564. BY ADVS. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.P.M.BENZIR SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN VPV WPCNO.18031/2006 RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 23476 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VPV WPCNO.18031/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER G.O (MS) NO.9/01/TRAN DATED 05.03.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENTORDER NO.PLA4/058771/97 DATED 08.03.2001 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENTORDER NO.PLA4/058771/97 DATED 08.03.2001 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENTORDER NO.PLA4/058771/97 DATED 08.03.2001 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENTORDER NO.PLA4/058771/97 DATED 08.03.2001 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENTORDER NO.PLA4/058771/97 DATED 08.03.2001 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENTORDER NO.PLA4/058771/97 DATED 08.03.2001 ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENTORDER NO.PLA4/058771/97 DATED 08.03.2001 ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.08.2002 IN OP NO.9291/2001 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P10: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.PL-1/3312/02/KTDA DATED 19.09.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ABSORBING THE PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 AS CONDUCTOR GRADE-II. EXT.P11: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.E1/2708/02/NDD DATED 03.10.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ABSORBING THE PETITIONERS 3 TO 5 AS CONDUCTOR GRADE-II. EXT.P12: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.E1/891/2001/PVR DATED 25.09.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ABSORBING THE 6TH PETITIONER AS CONDUCTOR GRADE-II. VPV WPCNO.18031/2006 EXT.P13: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1/2591/02/VKBN DATED 19.09.2002 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ABSORBING THE 7TH PETITIONER AS CONDUCTOR GRADE-II. EXT.P14: COPY OF G.O. (P) NO. 2357/99/FIN DATED 25.11.1999. EXT.P15: PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 13.04.1999 ENTERED INTO BY THE CORPORATION WITH ITS RECOGNISED TRADE UNIONS. EXT.P16: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2006 IN OP NO.2286/2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P17: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2006 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.761/06. EXT.P18: PHOTOCOPY OF I.A. NO. 3430/2006 DATED 26.07.2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.761/06. EXT.P19: PHOTOCOPY OF CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM NO.LR8-023330/97/TVPM DATED 08.06.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION. RESPONDENT' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1: COPY OF CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM NO.LR8-023330/97/TVPM DT. 8.6.2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) Nos. 18031 & 23476 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, some of them have retired from service. Their claim in this writ petition relates to computation of qualifying service for pension. The petitioners joined regular service after putting in provisional service. By Ext.P11 settlement (in W.P(C) No. 23476/2006), the management of the Corporation agreed with the unions that provisional service would also be reckoned for the purpose of computation of pension subject to certain conditions. The relevant portion of the same reads thus: “XXIII Pension xx xx xx 3. Daily wages period of Conductors, Drivers and Mechanical Staff before their regular appointment in full, will count for pension provided there should be at least ten days duty in a month. If there is no duty in a month, that month will be excluded and 50% will be taken as qualifying service of the month in which the number of duty is below 10 or 50% of the total daily wage period excluding the month having no duty whichever is beneficial to the employee. xx xx xx” Later on, the managing Director of the Corporation unilaterally issued Ext.P15 order (in W.P(C) No. 23476 of 2006) holding that such provisional service would not be counted for pension. It is challenging the same, these writ petition have been filed. W.P(C) Nos. 18031 & 23476 of 2006 -: 2 :- 2. The question as to whether provisional service can be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation was finally decided by a Full Bench of this Court in District Transport Officer v. Kunchan, 2009(3) KLT 954(FB). Paragraph 27 of the same reads thus: “27. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that the principle laid down in Idicula, to the extent to which directs that any kind of casual service of an employee, followed by an entry of such employee in regular service would be eligible to be treated as regular service for all intents and purposes does not lay down the correct principle. No doubt, the Bench in Idicula was essentially trying to construe a term contained in the conciliation settlement between the management and the employees. But, we cannot, but take note of the fact that regular selection and appointment of persons in the Corporation has been done for the past 30 years, only on the advice of the Commission. The Corporation, an instrumentality of the State, cannot be considered as having agreed to any settlement which will not bear true allegiance to the constitutional principles that should invariably govern the affairs of an instrumentality of the State. Thus, where a term of settlement, to which an instrumentality of a State is a party, provides for treating casual service also as part of regular service for all intents and purposes, then it will only be appropriate to treat only such casual service, rendered by a person, who has already been advised by the Commission for regular appointment against the post in question as part of regular service. Any other kind of casual service would only be casual service, that cannot be considered as synonymous with regular service. We hold that the contrary principle laid down in Idicula does not lay down the correct law.” It is not disputed before me that in view of the said decision, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits prayed for in these writ petitions. But, it is submitted that W.P(C) Nos. 18031 & 23476 of 2006 -: 3 :- the said decision of the Full Bench has been taken in appeal before the Supreme Court, which is pending. Some of the petitioners have also impleaded themselves in the said SLP. Apparently, the petitioners wish to take up the matter before the Supreme Court. In view of the circumstances and in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits prayed for in these writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/