2013 Supreme(Ker) 227
High Court of Kerala
V. CHITAMBARESH, J.
C.R. Suresh Kumar & Others
Versus
State of Kerala Represented by its Secretary, Transport Department & Others
WP(C).Nos. 8301 of 2013 (K), 8573 of 2013 & 8617 of 2013
Decided on : 03-04-2013
For the Petitioners:K.P. Rajeevan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1, V.K. Rafeek, Government Pleader, R2 & R3, Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, SC, KSRTC.
The main legal point established is that the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is bound to follow the general instructions issued by the State Government regarding the recruitment, conditions of service, and training of its employees, and cannot depart from them without the previous permission of the State Government.
Headnote:
KSRTC - Recruitment Instructions - The court held that the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) is bound to follow the general instructions issued by the State Government regarding the recruitment, conditions of service, and training of its employees, and cannot depart from them without the previous permission of the State Government.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, empanelled drivers in the KSRTC, sought regularisation in service based on an order issued by the State Government. The KSRTC declined regularisation, citing that the petitioners did not perform 120 duties per year for ten years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the KSRTC is bound by the general instructions of the State Government and cannot depart from them without previous permission. The court quashed the order of the KSRTC and directed it to reconsider the petitioners' case for regularisation in service.
Issues: Can the KSRTC depart from the general instructions issued by the State Government? Is the KSRTC bound by the order of the State Government as regards regularisation in service?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the KSRTC is bound to strictly follow the instructions of the State Government and that a departure is permissible only after obtaining previous permission of the State Government.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions are allowed, and the court directed the KSRTC to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularisation in service within a period of two months.
Can the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short) depart from the general instructions issued by the State Government relating to the recruitment, conditions of service or training of its employees? The common order declining regularisation in service of empanelled employees is impugned in all the writ petitions and I shall refer to the parties and exhibits in W.P(C) No. 8301/2013 for the sake of convenience.
2. The petitioners who have been working for long as empanelled drivers in the KSRTC seek regularisation in service on the basis of Ext.P1 order issued by the Transport (A) Department of the State Government. It is discernible therefrom that the KSRTC submitted a proposal to the State Government for regularising empanelled employees in its service which however was not accepted in toto. The proposal was that all provisional employees who were in the panel of the KSRTC as on 1-9-2008 and have put in eight years of service with a minimum of 120 duties an year should be regularised. But the State Government by Ext.P1 order held that those provisional employees who were in the panel of the KSRTC as on 21-12-2011 and have put in ten years of service should be regularised. There is nothing to indicate in Ext.P1 order of the State Government that an empanelled employee should have performed a minimum of 120 duties an year for all the ten years in order to claim regularisation in service.
3. The sole ground on which the claim of the petitioners for regularisation in service has been turned down by Ext.P3 order of the KSRTC is that they have not performed 120 duties an year for all the ten years. Such an insistence is uncalled for since the proposal of 120 duties an year by an empanelled employee made by the KSRTC has not been accepted in Ext.P1 order of the State Government. Is the KSRTC bound by the order of the State Government as regards regularisation in service and can it discard such instructions are the pertinent questions to be answered. I should bear in mind that the legality of Ext.P1 order of the State Government enabling empanelled employees of the KSRTC to be regularised in service has not been questioned and hence does not fall for consideration.
4. I heard Mr. K.P Rajeevan, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Rafeek V.K, Advocate on behalf of the State Government and Mr. Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, Advocate on behalf of the KSRTC in this batch of writ petitions.
5. A quick reference to Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 ('the Act' for short) would be profitable and the same is extracted hereunder:
"34. Direction by the State Government
1) The State Government may, after consultation with a corporation established by such Government, give to the Corporation general instructions to be followed by the Corporation, and such instructions may include directions relating to the recruitment, conditions of service and training of its employees, wages to be paid to the employees, reserve to be maintained by it and disposal of its profits or stocks.
2) In the exercise of its powers and performance of its duties under this Act, the Corporation shall not depart from any general instructions issued under sub- section (1) except with the previous permission of the State Government." (emphasis supplied)
6. It needs no elaboration to find that the KSRTC is a Corporation established by the State Government and that there was a consultation evident by the fact that the proposal by the former was accepted with modification by the latter. The statutory provision aforequoted casts a duty on the KSRTC to strictly follow the instructions of the State Government and that a departure is permissible only after obtaining previous permission of the State Government. The general instructions of the State Government under the Act in regard to the regularisation of empanelled employees of the KSRTC are therefore bound to be followed and not flouted.
7. Previous agreements if any between the