IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 194 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1975/2001 Dated 27/06/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS ---------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA,REGIONAL OFFICE (KERALA) TRIVANDRUM 695 023. 2. BANK OF BARODA,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE BOMBAY. 3. THE MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA,OLARIKKARA JUNCTION, PULLAZHI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- V.G. RAMAKRISHNAN,CLERK-CUM-TYPIST BANK OF BARODA, PULLAZHI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. KOSHY GEORGE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R.P.No.194/2008 in W.A.No.1975/2001 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 O R D E R Mr.K.Anand, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that the observation of the learned Single Judge which is seen confirmed by the Division Bench that the court is prima facie of the view that “going by clause (ii) of paragraph 4 of Ext.P2, D.A admissible is to be calculated based on the date of release of the incumbent from the Armed Forces” is likely to prejudice the bank's views and interest in the matter. 2. Having carefully gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the judgment of the Division Bench, we are of the view that the review petitioners do not have to be apprehensive about the observation. This Court has only expressed a prima facie view and ultimately the first respondent bank has been permitted to reconsider the issue. According to us, the bank does not have to be unduly influenced by the observation quoted herein before while complying with the R.P No.194/2008 -:2:- directions in the judgments. With the above observations, the review petition is disposed of. Review petitioners will have two more months from the date of receiving copy of this judgment to comply with the directions. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ms