IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 1157 of 2009(R) -------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.1836/2009 DATED 29/06/2009] .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.T. SHEEBA. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO. 4: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SMT. ELSIE JOHN, LECTURER SELECTION GRADE (RETIRED), CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNOOR RESIDING AT VAIKATHETH HOUSE, MUNDANKAVU, CHENGANNOOR. 2. PRINCIPAL, CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CHENGANNUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY, SRI. P.P. ABDUL KAREEM, R2 BY SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.JOHNSON T. JOHN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P. NO.1157/2009: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS OF SMT. ELSIE JOHN, FURNISHED BY THE PRINCIPAL DTD. 11/10/2011. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPROVAL DTD. 06/12/1989 GRANTED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN FAVOUR OF SMT. ELSIE JOHN. EXT.R2.C: COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS OF SMT. ELSIE JOHN DTD. 25/08/2011 FURNISHED BY THE PRINCIPAL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.1157/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 1836 of 2009-R - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011. O R D E R This review petition is filed by respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition. 2. In the operative portion of the judgment rendered by this Court dated 29.6.2009, it was noticed that “the eligibility for pension by counting the period of 30 years is admitted” and accordingly a direction was issued to the fourth respondent to submit a revised proposal for pension revision to the third respondent within a time frame. 3. What is averred in the review petition is that a mistake has crept in, in the counter affidavit while referring about the qualifying service of the first respondent/writ petitioner which was shown as 30 years. It is pointed out that the period from 18.11.1975 to 31.5.1978 had to be excluded, as the same was not reckoned for increments. Accordingly, it is mentioned that only those service which was counted for increments, alone can be taken as qualifying service. 4. The service particulars of the writ petitioner show that she was on leave without allowance from 2.6.1982 to 28.3.1985. The petitioner was appointed to a substantive post with effect from 31.12.1978. RP 1157/2009 2 4. In the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner opposing the averments in the review petition, reliance is placed on a Government letter dated 28.5.1999 addressed to the Director of Collegiate Education. Therein, what is mentioned is that the appointments in private colleges against the leave vacancies cannot be considered as provisional or temporary. The petitioner has later filed affidavit dated 23.9.2011. Along with the said affidavit, the writ petitioner produced three orders including the proceedings dated 6.12.1989 of the University whereby the University has approved the promotion of the petitioner from 14.11.1988 as Grade II (NC) Professor. The Management, along with their affidavit dated 12.10.2011 produced the service particulars of the petitioner as Ext.R2(a). It shows that the period of 10 years calculated for the Grade promotion was after reckoning the provisional service but excluding the L.W.A. period, i.e.: 18.11.1985 to 31.3.1976 = 4 months and 14 days 1.6.1976 to 1.6.1982 = 6 years 2.3.1985 to 13.11.1988 = 3 years 7 months and 16 days ------------------------------------ Total = 9 years 11 months and 31 days, i.e. 10 years. 5. Arguments were heard on these aspects. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grade promotion was granted excluding the RP 1157/2009 3 leave without allowance period, but counting the provisional service. It is therefore submitted that the said period having been considered and reckoned for grant of grade, the same is liable to be reckoned for grant of pension. 6. Evidently, the period of leave without allowance is from 2.6.1982 to 28.3.1985. The grade promotion is granted with effect from 14.11.1988. It is clear that the said grade promotion is granted on completion of 10 years, but excluding the leave without allowance period. Therefore, it can be seen that the disputed period has also been reckoned for the purpose of grant of higher grade. No other legal embargo is shown to exclude the said period for pension. 7. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to allow the review petition. There is no apparent error in the judgment. The review petition is dismissed. Appropriate orders will be passed in terms of the directions issued by this Court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/