1. The prayers in all these writ petitions are similar, and they are hence heard and disposed of together. The petitioners in all these cases were working as Drivers/Conductors in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) on a temporary basis. In the year 2008, a bipartite pay revision agreement was entered into between the KSRTC and the Trade Unions and employees. One of the proposals in the agreement was to regularise the provisional empanelled employees who had put in 8 years of service with 120 days of duty per year. The Government had initially approved the agreement. But when orders were issued on 22.12.2011, the conditions for regularisation were modified to 10 years of service, but without any stipulation regarding the number of days of duty every year. On 11.04.2012, the KSRTC issued orders imposing certain other conditions, including the requirement of 120 days of duty a year. Some of the employees challenged the above action in W.P.(C) No.8301 of 2013 and connected cases, which led to the judgment in Sureshkumar v. State of Kerala [2013 (2) KLT 258], wherein it was declared that the KSRTC cannot impose any additional conditions other than what has been stipulated by the Government in their order dated 22.12.2011. Even though the said judgment was challenged in Writ Appeal No.803 of 2013 by KSRTC, the challenge was not pursued, and the appeal was withdrawn. The KSRTC approached the Government for clarification, and the Government issued an order on 21.11.2013 by incorporating the condition of 120 days of duty per year in addition to 10 years of regular service as on 21.12.2011. By the time the orders were issued on 21.11.2013, the petitioners and others were regularised based on the judgment in Sureshkumar (supra), on the strength of individual judgments in writ petitions filed by them. The said judgments had become final, since no appeals had been filed against those judgments by the KSRTC. It is also seen that a review petition had been filed by the KSRTC, which had been dismissed, and Writ Appeal No.354 of 2014 filed against the said judgment had also been dismissed. The KSRTC approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal Nos. 4435 to 4438 of 2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Order dated 24.03.2017 approved the stand of the Government and the KSRTC regarding imposing the additional conditions. On 02.05.2018, the KSRTC issued orders terminating the services of the persons appointed temporarily who did not satisfy the condition regarding 120 days of duty per year for 10 years before 22.12.2011. The orders of termination were challenged in a batch of writ petitions, which culminated in the judgment dated 16.08.2022 in W.P.(C) No.27756 of 2018 and connected cases. Paragraph 21 of the Judgment, which contains the directions issued by this Court, is extracted below.

                  “21. In the afore circumstances and since the KSRTC also admits that no opportunity of being heard had been offered to the petitioners before the orders terminating their services had been issued, I dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:

                  (a)      The impugned orders of the KSRTC, terminating the services of the petitioners, are hereby set aside.

                  (b)      The competent Authority of the KSRTC is directed to intimate the petitioners and to afford them specific dates for hearing; on which day, they will be entitled to produce every document in their possession to establish that they had put in ten years of service and had served 120 days of duty every year until 21.12.2011.

                  (c)      In the event any of the petitioners are in possession of either inadequate documents to prove the above, or do not have them in their possession on account of the efflux of time, their case will be considered based on their Service Books along with Voucher of payment, Attendance Register, Check Sheet Register, Cash Counter Register, Rack Issue Register, which shall also be shown to them by the competent Authority of the KSRTC, with an opportunity to them to verify its contents; to ascertain the actual days served by them every year until 21.12.2011. The afore exercise shall be completed by the KSRTC within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

                  (d)      If, through the afore exercise, any of the petitioners are found to have put in ten years of service and 120 days of duty every year until 21.12.2011, then their regularisation shall be ordered by the KSRTC in terms of law, without any avoidable delay but not later than three months therefrom.

                  (e)      Axiomatically, if the KSRTC is to find that the petitioners or any of them do not satisfy the aforementioned twin criteria, then they will have the competence to issue appropriate termination orders with effect from the relevant dates.

                  (f)      It goes without saying that if there is any case among these batch in which the services of the petitioners are conceded to have been more than ten years and 120 days of duty per year until 21.12.2011, then the afore enquiry need not be affected against them and they shall be granted the benefit of regularisation in terms of the Government Order aforementioned, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

                  (g)      Finally, as regards those petitioners who have attained the age of superannuation, the benefits consequent to the afore exercise shall also lead to necessary pensionary benefits and other emoluments, as may be entitled to those who have been in service at the relevant time. As far as persons who already died, the benefits entitled to their families shall also be disbursed in the same manner. “

2. The petitioners in these writ petitions were all parties to the aforesaid judgment. These writ petitions have been filed since no further orders were issued by the KSRTC pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27756 of 2018 and connected cases. A copy of the judgment has been produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No. 43566 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No. 37669 of 2025 (Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No. 1036 of 2025). Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.37669 of 2024 retired on 31.03.2023. Prayers in these writ petitions are for a declaration that the 2nd respondent is bound to restore the earlier orders regularising the petitioners in service and to release all consequential benefits from the date of cancellation of the regularisation on 02.05.2018. The KSRTC has filed a counter affidavit in all these cases, contending that the petitioners do not satisfy the requirements laid down in the Government Order regarding 120 days' duty during the 10 years preceding the date 22.12.2011. Contentions are also taken to the effect that the petitioners had admitted the above fact in the earlier writ petitions.

3. Heard the counsel on either side.

4. SriN. Unnikrishnan appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the KSRTC is bound by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27756 of 2018 and connected cases wherein specific directions had been given regarding the manner in which the issue has to be examined. It is submitted that this Court has specifically directed that in case the petitioners have either inadequate documents to prove the factum of 120 days of duty every year till 21.12.2011 or they do not have such documents in their possession on account of efflux of time, their case will be considered based on their Service Books along with Voucher of payment, Attendance Register, Check Sheet Register, Cash Counter Register, Rack Issue Register, which shall also be shown to them by the competent authority of the KSRTC, with an opportunity to them to verify its contents to ascertain the actual days served by them every year till 21.12.2011. It is submitted that such an exercise was never done. It is also submitted that the KSRTC also does not seem to have these documents to effectively show that the petitioners did not have such periods of duty. It is further submitted that the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27756 of 2018 and connected cases had become final, and the KSRTC had never sought any variation of the directions contained in the judgment.

5. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the reply that the statement of attendance details had been produced by some of the petitioners, which had not been rebutted by producing any contrary evidence. It is also submitted that in the case of petitioners who have retired from service, the respondents were bound to extend the pensionary benefits and other emoluments. It is also submitted that since no orders were issued after Ext.P3 judgment, the only inference that can be drawn is that there was no material to deny regularisation of the petitioners. It is also alleged in the reply affidavit that even though the KSRTC had directed the Unit Officers to give the persons like petitioners included in the list attached, individual intimation directing to verify the documents and also to give a consolidated statement of attendance, nothing was done after the issuance of the memorandum by the KSRTC, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P6. It is also submitted that in W.P.(C)No.163 of 2024 filed by other similarly situated persons, this Court had issued Ext.P7 judgment directing reconsideration of the matters strictly in accordance with the judgment in W.P.(C) No.28461 of 2018 and connected cases. This Court reiterated that Clause (c) in paragraph 21 of the judgment must be strictly followed. Even before this Court, none of the documents stated in paragraph 21, clause (c) in the common judgment have been placed on record to show that the petitioners did not comply with the requirements.

6. The only defence put forward by the respondents is that some of the petitioners have admitted the lack of 120 duty days in the previous 10 years, and hence they are not entitled to contend that they have the required number of days. I do not think that such an argument is available to the respondents. Respondents have suffered the Ext.P3 judgment and have not challenged the same. The petitioners in these cases were petitioners in those cases. The parties are bound by the earlier judgments. This Court had specifically directed the respondents to provide details regarding their duty days, and admittedly, this has not been done. The statement in the earlier petitions cannot be taken as an admission, since in those writ petitions, the petitioners had only pleaded the details of the statement of attendance issued by the respondents themselves. The details provided by the respondents cannot be treated as an admission of the petitioners. This Court had directed the respondents to show the supporting documents for the contents of those statements and to convince regarding the lack of number of days of duty. Since such materials had neither been provided to the petitioners nor placed before this Court, the defence put forward by the respondents is not legally sustainable.

7. The counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. N. Murugesan & Ors. [(2022) 2 SCC 25] to submit that the parties cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. The principles laid down in the said judgment will not apply to the facts of this case since what was stated in the earlier writ petitions cannot be treated as an admission, as I have already observed.

                  The writ petitions are allowed. Since sufficient opportunity was granted during the pendency of these writ petitions also to comply with the directions in the Ext.P3 judgment, and no effort was taken to produce the materials stated in the earlier judgment before this Court, no purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the respondents for reconsideration. The respondents are directed to issue orders regularising the service of the petitioners and to grant them all consequential benefits, at the earliest, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.