IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 1036 of 2006(C) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.35938/2001 Dated 23/03/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPLICANTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PALA. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE VADAKKEL. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ LEELAMMA BRIDGET, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.IYPE MATHAI, H.S.A., MATHS. ST.MARY'S GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.E.S.M.KABEER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.1036/2006 in O.P. No.35938/2001 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 20th July, 2009. O R D E R The review petition is at the instance of the State. The issue pertains to the regularization of service of the writ petitioner rendered prior to 1.10.1994 through Employment Exchange, for the purpose of increment and higher grade, clubbing the same with the service in an aided school. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Government to take a decision in the light of the decision reported in Sobhana v. State of Kerala (2004(3) KLT 131. But the decision in the above case as such may not apply to the case of the petitioner since the ratio in that decision is only to the effect that even if regularization is after 1.10.1994, in case the provisional service is prior to 1.10.1994, the same is to be counted for the purpose of increment and higher grade. In this case, there is a clubbing of aided school service with Government service. That issue has to be addressed as such, though Sobhana's case (supra) may have some bearing on the ultimate decision. Thus the case of the writ petitioner is not wholly covered by Sobhana's case (supra). In that view of the R.P. No.1036/2006 2 matter, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the review petition is allowed. The judgment dated 23.3.2006 in O.P.No.35938/2001 is recalled. Post the writ petition for hearing on 23.7.2009 as per roster. 2. It is made clear that the undisputed portion of DCRG, if not already disbursed shall be disbursed, within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order since it is reported that pendency of review petition was the reason for the delay in disbursing the same. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No.1036/2006 in O.P. No.35938/2001 ---------------------------------------------- O R D E R Dated 20th July, 2009.