Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 698 (KAR)

Mohinuddin v. Managing Director, K. S. R. T. C.

2000-10-19

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2000
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner was the driver of bus bearing No. MYH 6708 under M/s. S.F. Gadigar Service. The said bus was acquired under the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and transferred to the Respondents Corporation under Section 19 of the Act. In terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act, the Petitioner became employee of the Corporation. Consequent upon Petitioner attaining the age of superannuation, he was retired from service by the Corporation under the impugned order at Annexure-E from the afternoon of 30.6.1994. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the same and is seeking a direction to extend the Petitioner's service from 30.6.1992 to 15.7.1999 or to give monetary benefits for the period 4.11.1987 to 14.12.1992. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that by virtue of the Notification dated 4.11.1987 he became the employee of the Corporation when the nationalisation of route was made pursuant to the notification issued on 3.11.1987 and even though his previous employer furnished all the requisite information under Section 5 of the Act, the Petitioner was appointed only with effect from 15.12.1992 under Annexure-D. On account of this delay of over 5 years in issuing the appointment order, the Petitioner is deprived of Gratuity and other service benefits for this period, viz., from 4.11.1987, the date on which he became the employee of the Corporation consequent upon nationalisation of bus route, to 14.12.1992, the previous date of his appointment. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order at Annexure-E retiring him from service and a direction is sought to extend his service from 30.6.1992 to 15.7.1999 or to give the monetary benefits for the period 4.11.1987 to 14.12.1992. 3. In the statement of objections the Respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. Reasons are furnished for the delay in appointing the Petitioner consequent upon acquisition of the bus in which he was working. 4. The first prayer of the Petitioner to quash Annexure-E is wholly misconceive and the same cannot be granted. On attaining the age of superannuation the Petitioner has been retired under Annexure-E. Hence, question of quashing the same does not arise. 5. The first part of second prayer to extend his service from 30.6.1992 to 15.7.1999 is also misconceived. 4. The first prayer of the Petitioner to quash Annexure-E is wholly misconceive and the same cannot be granted. On attaining the age of superannuation the Petitioner has been retired under Annexure-E. Hence, question of quashing the same does not arise. 5. The first part of second prayer to extend his service from 30.6.1992 to 15.7.1999 is also misconceived. Since the Petitioner retired w.e.f. 30.6.1994, question of extending his service from 30.6.1992 does not arise. Not only that, the Petitioner's service also cannot be extended beyond the age of superannuation. Thus, the first part of the prayer sought for is meaningless. 6. So far as the alternative prayer in the latter part of second prayer to grant monetary benefits and service benefits for the period 4.11.1987 to 14.12.1992 is concerned, Petitioner is entitled for the same. Under Section 19(3) of the Act, the Petitioner became the employee of the Corporation from the notified date. This employment is automatic notwithstanding the selection or appointment made by the Corporation. In the instant case, since appointment order was issued to the Petitioner belatedly, the Petitioner has been deprived of the service benefits until the date of appointment order. A statutory right had accrued in favour of the Petitioner under Section 19(3) of the Act consequent upon acquisition of the vehicle from the notified date. The same cannot be deprived. Hence, it has to be held that Petitioner was in service from 4.11.1987 itself. However, since he has not worked during the said period, he is entitled to only 25% backwages apart from other service benefits. 7. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that since the Petitioner did not produce the document in proof of his age there was delay in his appointment and therefore the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief, is wholly untenable. It is not in dispute that the owner of the erstwhile acquired vehicle had furnished the requisite information as required under Section 5 of the Act. When such information was furnished, it is not open to the Counsel to make such a submission. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is party allowed. Respondents are directed to extend full service benefits and 25% salary to the Petitioner for the period 4.11.1987 to 14.12.1992. The Petitioner is also entitled for terminal benefits from 4.11.1987 till the date of his superannuation. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is party allowed. Respondents are directed to extend full service benefits and 25% salary to the Petitioner for the period 4.11.1987 to 14.12.1992. The Petitioner is also entitled for terminal benefits from 4.11.1987 till the date of his superannuation. This order shall be complied with within a period of eight weeks.