High Court of KeralaWP(C)/16665/2012disposed of

K.S.Gopakumar v. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

2015-03-11Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/20TH PHALGUNA, 1936 ------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------------- K.S.GOPAKUMAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O.G. KRISHNAN NAIR P & T QUARTERS NO. BO-01, THEVARA COCHIN - 682 013, (SUPERINTENDENT, AUDIT WING KSRTC ERNAKULAM) BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT) RESPONDENTS:

----------------------------

1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT.P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

2. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT.P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION NEYYATINKARA - 695 121

4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 011

5. THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER CENTRAL WORKS KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PAPPANAMCODE - 695 014

6. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. T133 THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 206

7. SMT. L. SULOCHANA 14-21-1/58, RAMAL PARAMBU THAKKALA, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT TAMILNADU, 600 086 (W/O. LATE SRI. S. MURKESAN PILLAI SPECIAL ASSISTANT, CENTRAL WORKS, PAPPANAMCODE EXPIRED ON 11/04/2005)

8. V. SASIDHARAN (SUPERINTENDENT KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION RETIRED ON 31/03/2010 NEYYATINKARA - 695 121)

9. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER KERALA STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. T 133 THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 030 R1 TO R5 BY SRI.JOY GEORGE, SC, K.S.R.T.C.

SRI. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC.

R6 BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KSTW CO.OP. SOCIETY R8 BY ADV. SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE DUTY PASS OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION.

EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05/06/2012 EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/05/2011 IN W.P(C). NO. 26462 OF 2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-R6(A)- TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 16.03.2010 IN RAC NO. 117/2010 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT-R6(B)- TRUE COPY OF SURETY BOND NO. 3269 DATED 26.04.2001 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT-R6(C)- TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTERS DATED 26.04.2001 EXECUTED BY LOANEE, MURKESHAN PILLAI WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT-R6(D)- TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DATED 26.04.2001 EXECUTED BY PETITIONER, SHRI.K.S. GOPAKUMAR WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT-R6(E)- TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DATED 26.04.2001 EXECUTED BY SHRI. SASIDHARAN SECOND SURETY WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT-R6(F)- TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF LOAN NO. BAL 40884 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 16665 OF 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

The deceased husband of the seventh respondent was an employee of the first respondent. He had availed a loan from the sixth respondent society while in service. The petitioner as well as the eighth respondent are the sureties to the loan. 2.

It transpires that the retiral benefits have not hitherto been disbursed to the seventh respondent. The same if available with the first respondent can be applied to discharge the loan to the sixth respondent society. The first respondent shall take steps to clear the dues of the sixth respondent society and disburse the balance retiral benefits to the seventh respondent. The same shall be done within a period of one month from today.

The petitioner as well as the eighth respondent shall not be proceeded against in the meanwhile. They need be proceeded against only if the retiral benefits are insufficient to discharge the dues of the sixth respondent

W.P.(C). NO. 16665 OF 2012 2 society. I also note that the seventh respondent has not entered appearance to oppose the reliefs sought in the writ petition.

The writ petition is disposed of.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE