IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1202 of 2008(R) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.5402/2003 Dated 23/03/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. G.VIJAYAKUMAR, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RANNI. 2. K.N.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR(PUBLICITY) DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.SREEKANTAN NAIR, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER) SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT,DEPARTMENT, REP. BY ITS CONVENER, THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER) SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REP. BY ITS CONVENER. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RP.No.1202/2008 in OP.No.5402 of 2003 : 2 : 5. P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NILAMBUR. 6. K.SIVANKUTTY NAIR, PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NEDUMANGAD. 7. P.K.SIVAN PILLAI, MANAGER, CBSE SCHOOL, NJARANEELI, NOW ON WORKING ARRANGEMENT TO TRIBAL REHABILITION DEVELOPMENT MISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. M.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT KANJIRAPPALLY. 9. S.K.MADHUSOODANAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR(EDUCASTION SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. E.G.JOSEPH, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. 11. K.ABDUL AZEEZ, PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CIVIL STATION BUILDINGS, , KALPETTA. 12. O.J.JOHN, PROJECT OFFICER INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA PO. 13. P.VIJAYANATHA SHARMA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 14. V.P.VENOGOPAL, PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED TRIBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR PSC SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008 ALONG WITH OP.NO.5402 OF 2003, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.1202 of 2008 and O.P.No.1202 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th December, 2008. O R D E R Heard Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. In the nature of the reliefs sought for in this review petition, it is not necessary to issue notice to or hear respondents 5 to 14. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners submits that he was not present or heard when O.P.No.5402 of 2003 was dismissed, by judgment delivered on 23.3.2004. The learned counsel submits, referring to and relying on Exts.P8 and P9 produced along with reply affidavit filed by the petitioners in the original petition that the reliefs prayed for by the second petitioner had been granted to him and that as the party respondents have not challenged the said order, the writ petition, in so far as it relates to the second petitioner has RP.No.1202/2008 & O.P.No.5402 of 2003 2 become infructuous. The learned counsel further submits that petitioners 1 and 3 who are similarly placed as the second petitioner are also entitled to similar benefits as extended to the second petitioner in Exts.P8 and P9 and that reserving liberty with them to move the second respondent seeking similar benefits, the review petition may be disposed of. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. In the light of Exts.P8 and P9 which have become final and which the party respondents have not chosen to challenge till date, I find merit and force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners 1 and 3 are also entitled to benefits which were extended to the second petitioner. The review petition is accordingly allowed. The judgment dated 23.3.2004 dismissing O.P.No.5402 of 2003 is re- called and the Original Petition is disposed of with the following directions. RP.No.1202/2008 & O.P.No.5402 of 2003 3 Petitioners 1 and 3 shall, within one month from today, file an appropriate representation before the second respondent seeking the benefit of Exts.P8 and P9 Government orders. The second respondent shall, within one month thereafter, consider the said representation taking note of Exts.P8 and P9 Government orders, and pass orders thereon, after affording petitioners 1 and 3 an opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that as regards the second petitioner, in view of Exts.P8 and P9 Government orders, no further orders are necessary except to declare that he will be entitled to the benefits flowing there from. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.