Judgment :- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The grievance of the petitioner who is a retired Driver of the K.S.R.T.C. seems to be legitimate. He was appointed as Driver in K.S.R.T.C. at Chengannoor Depot in March 1975. While working as a Driver he had a massive heart attack and was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and was advised to take only light duty postings. The Corporation accordingly engaged the petitioner as a Security Guard on working arrangement upto 1991 in the same scale of pay of Drivers. After 1991 the petitioner was re-engaged at Chengannoor Depot as Driver. On 30-11-1994 the petitioner retired as Driver. In March, 1995 when the petitioner went to receive pension, the K.S.R.T.C. directed him to remit back the excess salary received by him while he was working as Security Guard. The aggrieved petitioner submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent. This court vide judgment dated 26-3-1996 directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation. The 1st respondent rejected the representation vide order No.PLB-5/63320/94 dated 2-7-1996. The petitioner challenged that order before this court by filing O.P.No.14503/96. This court vide Ext.P-1 judgment allowed the O.P. and declared that the Corporation is not entitled to recover any alleged excess payments from the petitioner which was disbursed to him while’ he was in service discharging the duties of the Security Guard in the scale of pay of Driver. On the basis of Ext. P-1 the petitioner filed Ext.P-2 representation dated 22-5-2003 requesting the Corporation to pay him pensionary benefits in the scale of pay of driver. Since there was no action by the Corporation on Ext. P-2, the petitioner moved this court again by filing W.P.C. No.34583/03. This court passed Ext.P-3 judgment and directed the 1st respondent to pass orders on Ext.P-2 representation within three months. The Corporation in compliance with Ext.P-3 judgment passed Ext. P-4 order rejecting the petitioner’s representation. It is impugning Ext. P-4 on the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition that this Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: (1) To quash Ext. P-4. (2) Declare that Ext. P-4 is unsustainable. (3) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the pay, pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner afresh and to pay the benefits treating the petitioner to be a driver all through his service. 2. P-4. (2) Declare that Ext. P-4 is unsustainable. (3) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the pay, pension and pensionary benefits of the petitioner afresh and to pay the benefits treating the petitioner to be a driver all through his service. 2. On behalf of the 1st respondent-K.S.R.T.C. a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed justifying Ext. P-4. It is contended therein that the petitioner was discharging the duties of a post, the pay scale of which is lower to that of ‘his initial posting as driver and therefore it was necessary that the pay should also be regulated according to the nature of the duties actually performed by the petitioner. Paying higher pay to the petitioner than that of the security guard in the circumstances of this case will defeat the very purpose of R.37 (b) of Part I, K.S.R. which is applicable to employees of the K.S.R.T.C. 3. Answering the contentions in the counter-affidavit the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit contending that the Corporation is misinterpreting R.37 of Part I K.S.R. and further that the Corporation is trying to over reach Ext. P-1 judgment of this court. 4. I have heard the arguments of Mr. N. Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Mr. Sajeevkumar K. Gopal learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. 5. Mr. Unnikrishnan would read over to me the full text of Ext. P-1 judgment as well as Ext. P-5 judgment passed in the case of one T.K Kaladharan, another driver of K.S.R.T.C. who was also in like circumstances posted as a Store Attender. Counsel submitted that in Ext.P-5 judgment it has been very clearly held that since there has been no category change and that too with the concurrence of the Public Service Commission, the incumbents are entitled to draw salary on that post which they are holding substantively. The learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.R.T.C. though would support the contentions raised through the counter-affidavit had to concede that in the case of the petitioner also there has been no category change. 6. I have considered the rival pleadings and the documents particularly Exts. P-1 and P-5. I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing Ext. P-4 the K.S.R.T.C. has been trying to over reach the judgment of this court in Ext. P-1. Ext. 6. I have considered the rival pleadings and the documents particularly Exts. P-1 and P-5. I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing Ext. P-4 the K.S.R.T.C. has been trying to over reach the judgment of this court in Ext. P-1. Ext. P-5 judgment of this court, according to me, covers a comparable fact situation. Here also it was on the basis of a working arrangement ­only that the petitioner who had been holding the post of driver substantively was allowed to work as security guard. There has been no category change in the case of the petitioner from the category of driver to security guard and much less with the concurrence of the Public Service Commission. Under these circumstances, as in the case of Ext. P-5 judgment the present petitioner will also be entitled for relief. Accordingly, Ext. P-4 is quashed and there will be a direction to the respondents to refix, the pay, pension and pensionary benefits due to the petitioner treating the petitioner as a driver all through. This shall be done by the respondents within a maximum period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.