IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 RP.No. 735 of 2009(S) --------------------- (Against the judgment in W.P.(C).No.11167 of 2009) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 3RD PARTY --------------------------------------- K.V.RATHANAMMA, W/O.LATE K.K.KRISHNAN KUTTY, KOOTTATHARA HOUSE NEAR K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND , ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.SURESH JOSE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) NO.11167 OF 2009 --------------- 1. SAVITHRI, W/O.LATE K.K.KRISHNANKUTTY KOOTTATHARA HOUSE, PIATHURUTHU,ELAMKULAM KADAVANTHARA P.O, KUMARAN ASAN NAGAR,ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) NO.11167 OF 2009 2. THE DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,STANDING COUNSEL, RAILWAYS FOR R2 & 3 SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE-R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- R.P. NO. 735 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 11167 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J. The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein, challenging the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench to produce the succession certificate for claiming the terminal benefits, from the Railways, arising out of the death of late K.K. Krishnankutty. The first respondent claimed that she is the only wife of late Krishnankutty and, in view of the materials produced by her, it was unnecessary to insist for production of the succession certificate. Since, the cumbersome procedure of the civil court will delay the payment, the first respondent sought a direction from this Court to release the terminal benefits of her late husband, on production of a legal heirship certificate. This Court accepted the contention of the first respondent/petitioner. Since, the Railways also did not bring to our notice that the late R.P. NO. 735/2009 2 Krishnankutty has another wife, we allowed the prayer of the first respondent. But, now the review petitioner has come forward claiming that she is the first and legally wedded wife of late Krishnankutty and, therefore, she is entitled to get the terminal benefits on the death of the said employee. Whether the claim of the review petitioner is genuine or not, is a matter to be adjudicated. Since we rendered the judgment under review on the premise that there was no rival claimant, we think the judgment has to be recalled. We do so. The judgment under review is recalled and the Writ Petition is posted for hearing. The review petitioner may get herself impleaded in the Writ Petition and raise her contentions. The Review Petition is allowed as above. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ R.P. NO. 735/2009 3 K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. R.P.NO. 735/2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.11167/2009 O R D E R 13th January, 2010 R.P. NO. 735/2009 4