IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 454 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2232/2008 Dated 09/09/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, A & E KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------- 1. KALLIANIKUTTY V., SECTION OFFICER HIGHER GRADE (RETD.), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, RESIDING AT THEKKEDATHU HOUSE, MARADU P.O., NETTOOR, ERNAKULAM-682304. 2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.SREEKUMAR R2 BY ADV.SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.454/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX 1: COPY OF THE ACT 34 OF 2008. ANNEX 11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/3/2011 IN W.A.NO.161/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- RP No.454 OF 2011 IN W.P (C) No.2232 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JULY, 2011 O R D E R This Review Petition is filed by the State against the judgment dated 09-09-2010 in the writ petition, whereby the petitioner in the writ petition was directed to be given benefits taking into account the extended period of service after superannuation. The Review Petition is filed on the premise that the direction in the judgment is contrary to the Kerala High Court Services (Determination of Retirement Age) Act, 2008. I passed the following orders on 24-06-2011. “When it was pointed out to the Government Pleader that this case does not relate to enhancement of the retirement age by the Hon'ble Chief Justice which was annulled by the legislature by an Act, but it is a case of the Hon'ble Chief Justice exercising powers granting extension of service of the petitioner under Rule 60 (a) Part-I K.S.R., the learned Government Pleader seeks time.” The only contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that Annexure-I Act applies to this case also. I am not satisfied and the contention of the Government Pleader is correct. What is applicable is Rule 60 (a) of Part-I of K.S.R. For R.P. No.454/2011 -2- deciding that issue, no provision of Annexure-I Act can be pressed into service. Therefore, there is no merit in the Review Petition. Accordingly the Review Petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge