IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 867 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36432/2009 DATED 04/06/2010. .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETIIONER ------------------------------------------------ N.K. KUNJU, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.LATE KARAMPAN, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA HOUSE, MANJOOR SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 603. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, POWER DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELECTRICITY-GENERAL) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (STORES), TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE. 6. THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. RP.No. 867 of 2010(Y) 7. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION-SPECIAL), OFFICE OF THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. R2 TO R7 BY ADV. MR.ASOK M.CHERIYAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.P. No. 867 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 36432 of 2009 Y ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 04-06-2010, upholding the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to be disbursed his service benefit including DCRG. Although there was a prayer in the writ petition that the petitioner should be held entitled to consequential payments, by an inadvertent omission, such a direction was not issued. It is complaining of the above, this review petition is filed. 2. I heard Standing Counsel for the respondent Board also. 3. Having heard both sides, I am satisfied that once the claim of the petitioner for disbursement of DCRG is upheld, if the petitioner is entitled to any consequential benefits, that claim of the petitioner should also be upheld. Therefore, this Review Petition will stand disposed of clarifying that consequent on the payment of the DCRG, if any RP.867/2010 : 2 : further amounts are due to the petitioner towards pensionary benefits, the petitioner will be entitled to such benefits. Such benefits, if any due, shall be quantified and paid to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge