IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 RP.No. 39 of 2009 ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.35118/2008 DTD. 10/12/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PADMAJAYANTHY,PARMACIST-IN-CHARGE, NEETHI MEDICAL STORE,T.B.ROAD,CHANGANACHERRY. 2. SUJAN MONEY,PHARMACIST,NEETHI MEDICAL STORE, T.B.ROAD,CHANGANACHERRY. 3. MURUKAKUMAR,SALES HELPER/SALESMAN, NEETHI MEDICAL STORE,T.B.ROAD,CHANGANACHERRY. 4. BINDU.P.S.,SALES HELPER/SALES MAN, NEETHI MEDICAL STORE,T.B.ROAD,CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND 8: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.D.BABU,S/O.DIVAKARAN,CHATHANADU VEEDU, PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. T.PRADEEP,S/O.THANKAPPAN, KOTTARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G) CHANGANACHERRY. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G),KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. PUZHAVATHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.62,CHANGANACHERRY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. PUZHAVATHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LD.NO.62 REP; BY ADMINISTRATOR,PUZHAVATHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.62,CHANGANACHERRY.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. M.P. MADHAVANKUTTY. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.39 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009. O R D E R This review petition is by respondents 4 to 7 in WP(C).35118/2008. The last sentence in the judgment rendered in the writ petition was a direction to the administrator not to change the quality of the service of the temporary appointees. That did not impair the right of those persons to enjoy the benefits of the office they hold, in terms of emoluments in revised packet of remuneration. Those employees are the review petitioners. They claim that the last sentence in the judgment sought to be reviewed is being misunderstood by the administrator and revised rates of remuneration as available to the review petitioners are being refused. To the learned Government Pleader, the last sentence in the judgment sought to be reviewed does not Rp39/2009 -: 2 :- create any confusion. The status of the employees ought not to be changed during the term of office of the administrator. If the benefit of any change in the remuneration pattern would come only with change in the status of the employment, obviously, that will fall within the last sentence of the judgment sought to be reviewed. The learned Government Pleader has rightly pointed out that all that the administrator had to do is to seek appropriate information from the Government counsel. The review petition is accordingly closed in view of the fact that the learned Government Pleader would advise the administrator appropriately. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/160109