JUDGMENT

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in great detail today. However, I must say upfront that the controversies projected by the petitioner in this case as squarely in the factual realm, into which, this Court cannot enter into at the first instance, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. I say as afore because, the petitioner seeks that the period between 09/09/2008 and 23/04/2018 – when he was serving the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), engaged in “light duties” – be considered for great promotions de hors Ext.P7; and further that certain periods mentioned in reliefs 3 and 4 be directed to be considered as Special Disability Leave and Medical Leave respectively. Indubitably, these aspects can be decided only after evaluation of the relevant facts and the documents, as are necessary.

3. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the grievance of the petitioner, as impelled in this case, must engage the attention of the 2nd respondent – Managing Director of the KSRTC.

Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition to the limited extent of directing the 2nd respondent to hear the petitioner, with respect to the grievances projected by him in this Writ Petition and consider the same de hors Ext.P7; but adverting to Exts.P13 to P15, as also to any other Statutes, Circulars or Regulations, which may cover the field.

The afore exercise will be completed by the 2nd respondent, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; for which purpose, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before him at 11.00 a.m. on 12/09/2022.

After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri.K.P.Justine –

learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, while the afore exercise is completed, 2nd respondent be also directed to consider his client’s contentions that, even though he was given “light duties”, there was no category change and, therefore, that Ext.P7 cannot apply. Obviously, the intent of the afore directions of this Court is that the petitioner’s claim must be considered in its proper perspective; and the question whether Ext.P7 would apply will also have to be decided by the 2nd respondent appositely, and his opinion on the same reflected in the resultant order.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16251/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REPORT OF KSRTC VIDE NO.G2/5575/2008/KKD DATED

16.4.2008.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, DATED 1.8.2008 WITH THE REGISTER NO.967751.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, ERNAKULAM, DATED 28.11.2008.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PL2-5642/

15/EKM. DATED 13.11.2015 OF THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL

17/022461/2020 DATED 24/11/2020 OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION).

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL15/029587/2015 DATED 12.4.2016.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NO.47 OF SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL15/025641/08 DATED 6.9.2008.

Exhibit P9A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL15/025641/08 DATED 24.6.2009.

Exhibit P9B TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL15/025641/08 DATED 4.10.2010.

Exhibit P9C TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL15/025641/08 DATED 16.02.2011.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF SALARY OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2021.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED TO SRI. BABU.S.P., CONDUCTOR FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2021.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPIES OF ATTENDANCE SHEETS.

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED

23.10.2002 IN W.A.NO.969/2000 IN O.P.NO.6656/ 1993.

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

6.2.2002 IN O.P.NO. 14522 OF 19