AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.—The 1st respondent in the Writ Petition, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "KSRTC") is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner.
The brief facts of the case are the following: The 1st respondent had worked in the KSRTC as driver from 16.6.1981 to 14.10.1994. Thereafter, he was advised for appointment by the Public Service Commission as Driver in the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "KSEB"). Therefore, he resigned from the KSRTC and joined the KSEB on 8.12.1994. He retired from service on 28.2.2005. The KSEB did not reckon his past service in the KSRTC for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. As per the relevant orders in force, if the KSRTC remits the pro-rata pensionary benefits for the service rendered by the 1st respondent in the KSRTC, the KSEB will count that service also for pensionary benefits. So, the 1st respondent moved the KSRTC for the said purpose. But, his representation was rejected by Ext.P11 communication dated 27.07.2007. So, the Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P11 and seeking consequential reliefs.
The relevant portion of Ext.P11 reads as follows:
In this context I may inform that you have left the Corporation and joined in K.S.E.B on 7/12/94 without submitting resignation letter to KSRTC. The Corporation came to know about your resignation only when you filed the above WP(C) before the Hon''ble High Court of Kerala. The K.S.R.T.C can consider your request for terminal benefits only if you submit your resignation letter to the Corporation in the prescribed proforma and clearing liabilities, if any, outstanding against you including cost of damage amounting to Rs. 24,420/- in connection with an accident dtd. 15/9/94.
However an amount of Rs. 13,817/- has been already paid to you towards P.F closure with interest in view of his prayer before the Hon''ble High Court to that effect. As per Rule 29 Part III KSR resignation of the service entails forfeiture of past service. Hence you are not eligible for service Gratuity.
Going by the above quoted portion of the communication, it would appear that according to the KSRTC, the 1st respondent has not properly resigned from it and therefore, he should submit a proper resignation letter. He should also remit an amount of Rs. 24,420/-, which is the cost of damages suffered by the KSRTC, arising out of an accident involving the vehicle driven by him. The last part of the above quoted portion of the impugned communication would show that since he has resigned from the KSRTC, his past service is forfeited. Mention is made of refund of PF closure amount also.
Regarding resignation, the KSRTC cannot blow hot and cold by the same breath. It says, the 1st respondent has not resigned properly and therefore, he should submit a resignation letter. Later, it is said, since he has resigned, his past service is forfeited. The KSRTC has already stopped the practice of recovering damages from the drivers of its vehicles to recoup the amount it has to pay in the claims made before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. Therefore, there is no justification for the KSRTC to insist that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner should pay Rs. 24,420/-. In view of Rule 29(b) read with Note 2 under Rule 11 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, there is no bar in reckoning the service rendered by the 1st respondent in the KSRTC. The stand of the appellant that the said service will stand forfeited by reason of his resignation, is plainly untenable.
In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.