IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 20 of 2008(N) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.31424/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN WP: -------------------------------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER IN WP: ------------------------------ R.N. HOMER, AGED 50 YEARS, RAMADIL HOUSE, KEDAMANGALAM, N.PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. -------------------------- R.P.NO.20 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C)No.31424 OF 2007 ----------------------------- DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 O R D E R This review petition has been filed on the premise that the review petitioner who had resigned from the service of the Corporation is not entitled to death-cum-retirement gratuity in as much as he is treated to have forfeited the same. It is contended that Rule 29 of Part III of the KSR deals with an employee who resigns from service and the same decision is reiterated in Rule 63 Part I KSR. Apparently, it is brought to the notice of this Court, according to the review petitioner, and hence the direction to disburse the DCRG is liable to be recalled, it is contended. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents pointing out that the service conditions of the employees of the Civil Supplies Corporation are dealt with in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Service Rules, 1974. The said Rule did not provide for any part of the KSR. The retirement age of the employees is 58 in terms of Rule 31 thereof. The Rules do not R.P.NO.20 OF 2008IN W.P.(C)No.31424 OF 2007 2 otherwise provides for the forfeiture of payment of gratuity in relation to an employee who has resigned from service. A reference is made to the effect that Shri N.Mohanan who retired on 31.12.2007 was paid gratuity in terms of section 4(2) under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It is contended that therefore the provisions of the said Act would be applied to the case of the petitioner. 3. After having heard the counsel on both sides and having perused the memorandum of review petition as also the counter affidavit, I am of the view that in the judgment, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the same. In the result, the review petition is dismissed. V.GIRI, JUDGE. dsn