IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 832 of 2009(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.21289/2001 Dated 14/03/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): /RESPONDENTS IN THE OP ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS (B), DEPT. , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, ALUVA. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, KALADY. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, PERUMBAVOOR. 5. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, ALUVA. BY MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): / PETITIONER IN THE OP --------------- 1. A.K. PRAKASAN AMMUPPILLY (H) PIRAROOR P.O., KALADY, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. T.N. SADANANDAN, THATUPARA HOUSE, OKKAL P.O., PERUMATTAM, ERNAKULAM. 3. K.E. PATHROSE,KAPPADAKKAMADATHIL HOUSE, CHOONDAKUZHY P.O. R.P.NO.832/2009 4. N.O. JOSE, NAIRKKULAM HOUSE, KANJOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 5. K.N. SASIDHARAN, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, CHERNALLOOR P.O., KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM. 6. A.G. ANANDAN, ALLADATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVO OR, ERNAKULAM. 7. K.V. SURESH, KAPPARAKKATTU HOUSE, OKKAL P.O., ONAMPILLY PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 8. T.K. RAVIRAJAN, KOTTAMAM, NEELESWARAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 9. P.A. THOMAS, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, KANJOOR P.O., THATTANPADI, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 10. T.G. VASU, THARANILATHU HOUSE, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM. MR.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, ALONG WITH RP NO. 884 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.832 of 2009 in O.P.No.21289 of 2001 & R.P.No.884 of 2009 in O.P.No.31476 of 2001 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2010 O R D E R Heard learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In these review petitions, two clarifications are sought for, which are unopposed. 3. First is that, the petitioners are still SLR workers, who have not been absorbed into regular service, contrary to what is stated. It is so clarified. The other clarification required is that in the last paragraph of the judgment, as against the words 'revision of pay', it has been wrongly stated as 'higher grade fixation'. That mistake is also corrected and the expression 'higher grade fixation' occurring in the last paragraph of the judgment will stand corrected and read as 'revision of pay'. These review petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg