HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J
P.A. SUBRAMANIAN – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C)/8873/2018
Writ - Mandamus - Article 226 - Duty Leave and Pension Calculation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Inspector, sought a mandamus for sanctioning duty leave and calculating pension considering his service in the Total Literacy Programme between May 1989 and July 1990.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for duty leave and pension recalculation, ensuring the petitioner is heard.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to duty leave and pension consideration for the period spent in the Total Literacy Programme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the entitlement to duty leave and pension must be evaluated according to existing laws after a proper hearing.
Final Decision: The court directed the first respondent to decide on the representation regarding duty leave within two months.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who retired from service on 31.03.2011, while working as Inspector in the Ernakulam Depot of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to sanction duty leave for the period he had performed duties for the purpose of 'Total Literacy Programme'. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to reckon the period spent for 'Total Literacy Programme' for the purpose of monthly pension with consequential monetary benefits. Going by the averments in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, the petitioner had performed duty as Instructor and also as Circle Convener in 'Total Literacy Programme' for the period from May, 1989 to July, 1990 under the control of the 4th respondent District Collector, Ernakulam.
2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.11206 of 2018 under Rule 148 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 seeking an order to implead the Special Sale Officer/Senior Inspector, Kanayannur Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. No.E326, Mulanthuruthy Branch as additional 5th respondent in this writ petition; and I.A.No.11207 of 2018 under Rule 154 of the said Rules to accept an auction notice dated 19.05.2018 issued by the Special Sale Officer :-2-:
(Ext.P10) as additional document. Those interlocutory applications were dismissed by the order dated 28.06.2018. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said order read thus :
“3. From the affidavit accompanying to this interlocutory application, it appears that the petitioner availed a loan from Mulanthuruthy Branch of Kanayannur Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. On account of the default committed in repayment of the loan amount, recovery proceedings have been initiated, which resulted in the issuance of an auction notice dated 19.05.2018, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P10 along with I.A. No.11207 of 2018. It is averred in paragraph 2 of the affidavit that, in view of the issuance of Ext.P10 auction notice, the Special Sale Officer of the said Bank is a necessary and proper party for the proper adjudication of the writ petition.
4. InUdit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar (AIR 1963 SC 786), the Apex Court laid down the principle that, a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings.
5. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, the Special Sale Officer who has issued an auction notice dated 19.05.2018 for sale of the petitioner's property is neither a proper party nor a necessary party to decide the question involved in W.P.(C) No.8873 of 2018 i.e., the entitlement of the petitioner to sanction duty leave for the period he had :-3-:
performed duties for the purpose of 'Total Literacy Programme' and to reckon the said period for the purpose of calculating monthly pension. Similarly the auction notice dated 19.05.2018 issued by the Special Sale Officer is a document, which has no relevance on the question involved in W.P.(C) No.8873 of 2018.”
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC representing respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P6 representation dated 12.03.2014 made by the petitioner is pending consideration before the 1st respondent and the said respondent may be directed to consider and pass appropriate order on the same, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 representation with no
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.