IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 242 of 2002(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.378/1999 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ APPELLANT ------------------------------- A.SITARAMA PODUVAL, S/O. SREEKANDA PODUVAL, AGED 58 YEARS, RETIRED PROJECT OFFICER, RESIDING AT ATHAYI HOUSE, NAHADEVAGRAMAM, PAYYANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE SECRETARY, KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------- R.P. No.242 OF 2002 ----------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. There was some delay in granting pensionary benefits to the review petitioner. So, he approached this Court by filing O.P.No.3133/1996. The said Original Petition was allowed by directing the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 8%, for the D.C.R.G. amount payable to the petitioner, from 1.3.1994 to 21.3.1996. During the pendency of the writ petition, the terminal benefits were already released on 22.3.1996. That was the reason for the learned Single Judge to order payment of interest up to that date. But, from the date of retirement, interest was declined for a period of one year. The learned Single Judge made the said order on finding that the liability, if any, against the petitioner should have been fixed within one year and payment should have been made immediately thereafter. Since there was failure to pay the amount, within the said time limit, interest was ordered for the period of delay beyond one year. R.P.No.242/2002 2 The petitioner contended that, in fact, there was no liability and therefore, denial of interest for the said period of one year is also illegal. But in appeal, the Division Bench affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge holding that payment of interest is a matter within the discretion of the learned Judge. Since there were no grounds to interfere with the exercise of discretion, the appeal was dismissed. This review petition is filed claiming payment of interest for the first one year from the date of retirement. 2. We notice that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review. As rightly held by the Division Bench, payment of interest is a matter in the discretion of the Court and the discretion has been exercised in a manner which cannot be described as perverse or arbitrary. The Division Bench, therefore rightly declined to interfere. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, there was no liability to be fixed against the petitioner and therefore denial of one year's interest is unjustified. We think that the same is not a ground available for review of the judgment. The R.P.No.242/2002 3 Division Bench consciously declined to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. If that decision is wrong, the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing an appeal and not a review petition. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) ps R.P.No.242/2002 4 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. =========================== R.P.NO.242/2002 =========================== O R D E R DATED 15TH DECEMBER, 2008 =========================== R.P.No.242/2002 5