IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 1004 of 2010(G) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7626/2004 Dated 13/07/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY, ADIMALI. 5. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDA KUMAR SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC --------------------------------------------------------- C.G.JANARDHANAN, RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM, POLINJAPALAM, ADIMALI P.O., MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.SIRIJAGAN,J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 1004 of 2010 in WP(C) No. 7626 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 ORDER This review petition is filed by the State seeking review of the judgment dated 13.07.2007 in WP(C) No.7626/2004 which reads as follows: Petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the delay in disbursing the gratuity. It is seen from the statement that a vigilance enquiry was pending in the matter and the petitioner is the third accused in the said vigilance case (VC-1/03/IDK). In the statement filed in August, 2004, it was expected that another six months' time will be necessary to complete the investigation. Learned Government Pleader submits that some more time is required for completing the enquiry, in view of the intervening developments. There will be a direction to the Vigilance Department to complete the enquiry within a period of nine months from today. If in any situation, it is not concluded within the said period, it shall be taken that the petitioner is not involved in the case and he shall be paid his full eligible gratuity. 2. The reason stated in the review petition is that several criminal cases are pending against the R.P. No. 1004 of 2010 in WP(C) No. 7626 of 2004 2 respondent in the review petition on very serious charges and according to the State, 89 such cases are pending. In view of the direction in the judgment that if the vigilance enquiry is not completed within nine months it shall be taken that the petitioner is not involved in the case would cause serious prejudice to the State. 3. After hearing the respondent who appears in person also, I am inclined to review that part of the judgment which directs that if the vigilance enquiry is not completed within the stipulated time it shall be taken that the petitioner is not involved in the case. Accordingly the judgment is reviewed and it is modified as follows: Last sentence of the judgment would stand substituted by the following sentence: “If in any situation it is not concluded within the R.P. No. 1004 of 2010 in WP(C) No. 7626 of 2004 3 said period the petitioner shall be paid his full eligible gratuity. However, the cases pending against the petitioner can be continued after paying the gratuity amount”. The review petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRIJAGAN, JUDGE. rkc