IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 472 of 2008(D) --------------------- {IN WPC.21460/2006 OF THIS COURT} .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1,2,3 & 5: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PUSHPALATHA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 4TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SOSAMMA THOMAS, THOPPIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBADIMALA, MULANTHURUTY, ERNAKULAM, FULL TIME SWEEPER (RTD.) AMBALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. RP.No. 472 of 2008 :: 2 :: 2. THE SECRETARY, AMBALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AMBALLOOR, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN R2 BY ADV.SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.472 of 2008 in W.P.(C)No.21460 of 2006 ------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009. O R D E R The State has filed this petition for review in relation to the judgment passed on a writ petition filed by a Full Time Sweeper in Amballur Grama Panchayat, who retired on 21.7.2005, after attaining the age of 65 years. As per Government Order No.106/91/LSGD dated 23.3.1991, Full Time contingent employees working in the Panchayat from 1.4.1991 are entitled to continue up to the age of 65, provided they do not opt for the pension scheme. If they do so, then they are liable to be retired at the age of 55. Petitioner did not opt for the pension scheme. She, therefore, continued till the age of 65. But, it seems that the benefit of the pay revision was granted and her pay was fixed at Rs.859/- as per G.O.(P)No.1/95 dated 6.1.1995 and at Rs.2,730/- as per the pay revision order dated 25.11.1995. R.P.No.472 of 2008 in W.P.(C)No.21460 of 2006 :: 2 :: According to the State, this is a mistake. The benefits ordered were cancelled and the excess amounts were directed to be refunded. This communication, Ext.P10, was challenged in the writ petition. 2. After hearing counsel on both sides, I had disposed of the writ petition quashing Ext.P10 and directing consideration of the petitioner's claim, in the light of Ext.P11. The review petition is essentially directed against the direction to reconsider the petitioner's claim in the light of Ext.P11, on the premise that Ext.P11 is applicable only in respect of persons, who opt for the pension scheme and the petitioner did not choose to do so. 3. Since the petitioner had continued till 65 years, because she did not opt for the pension scheme, the reconsideration of her claim in the light of Ext.P11 does not seem to be required. But, at the same time, it is to be made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to all retirement benefits by way of Death cum Retirement R.P.No.472 of 2008 in W.P.(C)No.21460 of 2006 :: 3 :: Gratuity and leave surrender benefits, along with applicable dearness allowance (except pension), as other Full Time contingent employees, who had continued up to the age of 65. It is made clear that, in the facts and circumstances, taking note of the fact that the benefit derived pursuant to the pay revision orders of 1995 and 1998 and consequent disbursal of salary thereupon, would, at best be, treated as resultant upon a mistake, to which the writ petitioner had not contributed. Recovery, at this distance of time, especially after the retirement of the petitioner, a Sweeper, will not be justified. In the result, the review petition is disposed of, making it clear that the interdiction against the direction of refund made in my judgment dated 3.10.2007 will stand. But the direction for reconsideration of the writ petitioner's claim shall stand reviewed. The writ petitioner will be entitled to other terminal benefits as are due, in the manner aforementioned and the same shall be disbursed within R.P.No.472 of 2008 in W.P.(C)No.21460 of 2006 :: 4 :: three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge