C. Rajagopalan Nair (Conductor, KSR, Chadayamangalam Sub Depot, Retired on 31/12/2007) Aramam, Vazhivila Junction, Mithrumala P.O. Kallara, Thiruvanantpauram vs Sri. Alexander K. Luke (Age And Fathers Name Not Known to The Petitioner),Managing, Director Ksrtc, Transport Bhavan, Fort Thiruvananthapuram

Justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair

The petitioner''s complaint is that the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment have not been complied with by disbursing the retirement benefits. Annexure A2 is the representation filed by the petitioner before the Managing Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation.

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent wherein, Annexures R1(a) and R1(b) have been produced. Various eligible benefits have been sanctioned as per Annexure R1(a) except Commuted Value of Pension.

Going by the affidavit filed by the respondent, the stand taken is that the petitioner is not entitled for any other benefit other than Provident Fund Closure. It is also submitted that the P.F. Closure application was submitted recently and the same will be disbursed shortly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recoveries made as evident from paragraph 4 of the affidavit of the respondent and those are mentioned in Annexure R1(b), cannot be justified. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that Annexure R1(b) is a consent letter given by the petitioner based on which recovery has been made.

As regards the denial of Commuted Value of Pension, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand taken by the Corporation is not correct, as timely applications were submitted and there is no delay in the matter. The petitioner has also got a case that he was not communicated any final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings and therefore he is unaware about the punishment imposed and that he was compelled to submit Annexure R1(b).

As far as the direction issued by this Court in the judgment is concerned, this Court directed the petitioner to file appropriate representation and the eligibility regarding the grant of pension as well as the other retirement benefits was directed to be examined and the benefits which are found liable to be disbursed, had been directed to be disbursed also. Therefore, the specific claim of the petitioner in respect of the different heads was not adjudicated by this Court, leaving it to the competent authority to pass an order.

Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge Annexure R1(b) as well as the imposition of punishment by the Corporation, whereby an amount of Rs.5,280/- has been adjusted as monetary value of increment bar.

Since the petitioner complaints that the proceedings with regard to the disciplinary action has not been furnished to him so far, the same will be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. Leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to challenge Annexure R1(b), the Contempt of Court Case is closed.