IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 773 of 2007(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.11995/1998 Dated 18/12/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.P.JACOB,(RETIRED VIGILANCE OFFICER, RUBBER BOARD),M-131,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, COCHIN- 682 033. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RUBBER BOARD,(MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)P.B NO.1122,SUB JAIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001,KERALA STATE,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF COMMERCE UDYOG BHAVAN,NEW DELHI - 110 011. 3. STATE OF TAMIL NADU,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, HOME DEPARTMENT,CHENNAI - 600 009. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.773/2007 in O.P.No.11995/1998 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 20th July, 2009. O R D E R C.M.Application No.342/2007 : This is a petition for condonation of delay of 204 days in filing the appeal. It is seen that the service to the third respondent is not complete. There was no appearance for the third respondent when the writ petition itself was pending. In the nature of the order I propose to pass in the delay petition and the review petition, it is not necessary to serve notice on the third respondent. After having heard the counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, I find that the review petitioner has made out a case for condonation of delay. Hence the delay is condoned. The review petition is at the instance of the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed praying for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to grant higher grade to the writ petitioner with effect from 23.12.1985, and for consequential refixation of pension. The writ petition was disposed of in the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit that if refixation is made, that would adversely affect the interests of the writ RP NO.773/2007 2 petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that the same is apparently due to a mistake of fact. It is also submitted that the counsel had instruction from the writ petitioner to file reply, but unfortunately owing to an inadvertent omission on his part, reply could not be filed. It is seen that the issue had been considered by the first respondent and hence there is no point in now relegating the petitioner to the same authority. Since the review petitioner has sought one week's time to file reply and thereafter, consideration of the case on merits by this court and also taking into consideration the advanced age of the writ petitioner, the review petition is allowed. The judgment dated 18.12.2006 in O.P.No.11995/1998 is recalled. Post the writ petition for hearing on 24.7.2009. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.773/2007 in O.P.No.11995/1998 ---------------------------------------------- O R D E R Dated 20th July, 2009.