IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 378 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31520/2008 Dated 28/10/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------------- THE KULAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.4589, P.O. SHORNUR, PIN 679 122, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND OTHER RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.KRISHNAN, S/O.LATE MAKKU, VALIYATHODY VEEDU, KULAPPULLY P.O., SHORNUR-2, RETIRED SECRETARY, KULAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.4589. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD. 5. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV BINOY VASUDEV THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... R.P.NO.378 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2009 ORDER It is pointed out that though Retnavalli's case approved by the Division Bench in W.A1257 of 2004 may govern the situation in hand regarding payment of gratuity due to the petitioner, who had superannuated from service of a Co-operative Society, the amount directed to be paid is in excess of the actuals that may be due. It is stated that the employer Society disputes that quantum on different grounds including the rate of HRA and other components that could be added on to determine the gratuity amount. The judgment sought to be reviewed was issued without hearing the respondents in the writ petition and preserving their right to move for review of judgment. Under such circumstances, the judgment dated 28.10.2008 in WP(C) 31250 of 2008 is reviewed and recalled. Post the writ petition appropriately. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE 2 lgk/30/5