JUDGMENT

While the petitioner was working as a Conductor with the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), he suffered certain medical conditions – he admits began much earlier – on account of which, according to him, he was unable to discharge his duties and that he, therefore, requested for being shifted to a post having lighter responsibility, through application dated 23.04.2018. He says that this application was not considered in time and that, therefore, he was forced to prefer applications for leave for the period from 25.04.2018 to 26.05.2018 (this application is not on record) and for further leave from 23.05.2018 through Ext.P14. He asserts that since his condition was deteriorating, he preferred Ext.P15 application again, seeking that he be shifted to a lighter duty, followed by another representation dated 22.06.2018 (copy of which is not on record). He says that, finally, on 01.06.2018, the KSRTC asked him to produce a Medical Certificate, to which he replied through Ext.P16, again seeking that he be shifted to a lighter duty; but that instead of considering this, they issued him a directive on 17.09.2018 to produce a Disability Certificate, which he acceded to, along with the Medical Certificate, namely Exts.P1 and P17 on 18.09.2018.

2. The petitioner says that, in spite of all these, in a mechanical fashion, the KSRTC issued a notice to terminate his services on 22.01.2019, which was challenged by filing W.P. (C)No.39150/2018, culminating in Ext.P2 judgment, whereby, his applications for shifting to a lighter duty were directed to be considered; but then Ext.P3 order being issued rejecting it. He says that, he therefore, preferred another application, along with a Disability Certificate, on 26.03.2019, followed by Exts.P4, P5 and P18 and then approached the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. He submits that, since urgent directions were required, he approached this Court again, by filing W.P.(C)No.10524/2019, which led to a judgment directing the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to pass an order, thus culminating in Ext.P7. 3. The petitioner says that even though the Government directed the KSRTC to implement Ext.P7 order of the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, they issued Ext.P9, dated 20.08.2019, literally demoting him to a lower post of Store Issuer (Grade II) carrying a lower scale of pay, which constrained him to approach this Court for the third time through W.P.(C)No.25123/2019 and to obtain Ext.P10 interim order. He says that he was, thereafter, allowed to join duty on 11.10.2019, on the strength of Ext.P10 interim order and that this order was finally confirmed by this Court in Ext.P11 judgment, making it clear that granting of a lighter duty will not entail a change of pay or allowances.

4. The petitioner contends that, therefore, on account of all the afore factual circumstances, the period when he was not allowed to discharge duties - between 23.04.2018 and 11.10.2019 - ought to have been regularized, since he was attending the office of the KSRTC on every day; but that instead of doing so, they have now issued Ext.P13 regularizing the said period only as Leave Without Allowances. He says that, this is egregiously improper, particularly because, on account of these issues, his increments from the year 2018 have been held up and not paid. 5. I have heard Sri.Jyothish Chandran –

learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Deepu Thankan – learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC.

6. Sri.Deepu Thankan controverted the afore assertions and allegations of the petitioner very strongly, arguing that whatever be the excuses that the petitioner may make, he kept himself out of duty from 23.04.2018, after submitting an application for a lighter duty. He argued that, the KSRTC obviously had to go through the said application and take an apposite decision thereon, especially because it had not been supported by the necessary Certificate of Disability or Medical