IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 1118 of 2009(C) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.22920/2001 Dated 30/05/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE O.P. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN THE O.P. ------------------------------------------- ALEYKUTTY THOMAS, KATTAPPURAM, NEAR E.S.I. DISPENSARY, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI. MATHEW JOHN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1118 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 ORDER The original petition was filed by the widow of one K.J.Thomas, who was working as HSA. He was granted deputation for the service under the Government of Ethiopia for a period of three years from 9.9.1967 to 8.9.1970. It is stated that the period of deputation was being extended from time to time up to 31.12.1979. It is stated that the petitioner's husband could not join duty thereafter and he applied for further extension of deputation for a period of three years from 1.1.1980 to 31.12.1982. But, that request was not granted by the Government. Later, the petitioner's husband submitted a leave application. Before the leave application could be considered, the petitioner's husband was removed from service with effect from 1.1.1980. The petitioner stated that her husband was due to retire on superannuation on 31.3.1988. The relief prayed for in the Writ Petition was to grant the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner's husband together with interest. RP No.1118/2009 2 2. In the Writ Petition, a counter affidavit was filed denying the claim made by the Writ Petitioner. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the request to regularise the period of absence up to 31.3.1988, as over stayal of leave, was rejected by the Government by the letter dated 31.10.1997 on the ground that the period after removal from service till the date of superannuation could not be regularised. In the counter affidavit, it was also stated that the matter was under the consideration of the Government and it was posted in the adalath. But, because of paucity of time, the matter could not be taken up in the adalath. 3. The Writ Petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 30th May, 2006 directing the respondents to settle and disburse the benefits due to the Writ Petitioner within a period of two months. It was also directed that if the eligible amounts are not disbursed within two months, the Writ Petitioner would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Writ Petition. 4. In the Review Petition, it is contended that the Government was not made a party in the Writ Petition and the RP No.1118/2009 3 petitioner's husband was not entitled to get pensionary benefits under the service rules. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner was also not entitled to the relief, is the contention raised by the Review Petitioners. It is contended that there is error apparent on the face of the record and that the judgment is liable to be reviewed. 5. On a reading of the judgment, it would appear that the disposal of the Writ Petition was on the basis that the petitioner was entitled to pension and that there was delay in the matter of finalising the claim. The question of entitlement of the petitioner to get the pensionary benefits does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the court either by the petitioner or by the respondents. This resulted in an error apparent on the face of the record which requires to be rectified by allowing the Review Petition. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed and the Writ Petition is restored to file. Post the Writ Petition for hearing. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl