IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 264 of 2000 --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN 19715/1996 DATED 6.4.2000) REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------- B.CHURULY, (DIED) FITTER GRADE -II, RESEARCH DIVISION NO.II, K.S.E.B., VAZHATHOPE, P.O.IDUKKI COLONY, IDUKKI DISTRICT 2. SMT.PARVATHI, W/O.LATE B.CHURULY, DOOR NO.29, PATTALAMMAL KOVIL STREET, VADAKKU STREET, APPIPATTI, CHINNAMANNOOR (VIA), UTHAMAPALAYAM TALUK, THENI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 3. RAJENDRAN, S/O.LATE B.CHURULY, . DOOR NO.29, PATTALAMMAL KOVIL STREET, VADAKKU STREET, APPIPATTI, CHINNAMANNOOR (VIA), UTHAMAPALAYAM TALUK, THENI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 4. SMT.CHURULIYAMMAL, D/O.LATE B.CHURULY, DOOR NO.29, PATTALAMMAL KOVIL STREET, VADAKKU STREET, APPIPATTI, CHINNAMANNOOR (VIA), UTHAMAPALAYAM TALUK, THENI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 5. SMT.JOTHI, D/O.LATE B.CHURULY, DOOR NO.29, PATTALAMMAL KOVIL STREET, VADAKKU STREET, APPIPATTI, CHINNAMANNOOR (VIA), UTHAMAPALAYAM TALUK, THENI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. 6. GANESHAN, S/O.LATE B.CHURULY, DOOR NO.29, PATTALAMMAL KOVIL STREET, VADAKKU STREET, APPIPATTI, CHINNAMANNOOR (VIA), UTHAMAPALAYAM TALUK, THENI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. RP No.264/2000 7. MUTHULAKSHMI, D/O.LATE B.CHURULY, DOOR NO.29, PATTALAMMAL KOVIL STREET, VADAKKU STREET, APPIPATTI, CHINNAMANNOOR (VIA), UTHAMAPALAYAM TALUK, THENI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU. (ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2 TO 7 IMPLEADED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 4.1.2010 IN IA NO.644/2009) BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELE. GENERAL), VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RESEARCH DIVISION NO.II, K.S.E.B., VAZHATHOPE, P.O.IDUKKI COLONY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR 1,2,3. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ R.P.No.264/2000 IN O.P. No.19715/1996-V ------------------------------ Dated this, the 18th day of February, 2010 Order Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the review petitioner. He was a Sweeper working under the Kerala State Electricity Board (for short “KSEB”) since 1.5.1970. Later, he was absorbed into regular establishment as Watchman with effect from 1.9.1972. Still later, he was promoted as Fitter Grade II on 1.1.1977. The persons who were in the last grade service up to 2.9.1972, but, later promoted to higher grades, were given a chance to relinquish their promotion and come down to the last grade post held by them before 2.9.1972 and enjoy the benefit of continuing in service up to the age of sixty and thereafter retire with pension. The benefit was extended to persons like the petitioner, by Ext.P3 order. As per that order, the option had to be exercised before 15.3.1996. The said time limit was extended by Ext.P2 order, up to 30.6.1996. The petitioner claimed that he exercised re-option pursuant to Ext.P2, as per Ext.P8 dated RP No.264/2000 - 2 - 21.6.1996, produced along with one of the reply affidavits filed by him. The petitioner also claimed that the said re-option was forwarded to the Chief Engineer along with Ext.P9 covering letter by the Assistant Executive Engineer. But, the respondents disputed the said claim. According to them, the petitioner never exercised option pursuant to Ext.P3, as modified by Ext.P2. If the petitioner did not exercise re-option pursuant to Ext.P2, he is not entitled to get the benefit of retention in service up to the age of 60 with pensionary benefits thereafter. Going by Ext.P9, it cannot be treated as a covering letter forwarding Ext.P8. It is, in fact, forwarding Ext.P4. The same is evident from para 7 of the reply affidavit of the petitioner dated 14.11.1998. In the absence of any material to support the claim of the petitioner, to show that he had exercised re-option within the time limit provided in Ext.P2, no relief could be granted to him. So, though the judgment under review is rendered on different grounds, we find no reason to review the same. 2. But, we notice that the petitioner continued in service till the date of judgment under review, that is, 6.4.2000. We RP No.264/2000 - 3 - are told that the petitioner died on 15.5.2009. If the petitioner was not paid salary for the said period up to 6.4.2000, the same shall be released to his legal heirs. Further, his pensionary claim shall be settled, as if he had retired from service on 31.1.1997. The service rendered by him thereafter shall not be counted for any service benefits, except for salary for that period. The respondents are directed to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner to his legal heirs within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The legal heirs shall produce the necessary documents, to enable the KSEB to release the benefits to them within the said time limit. Subject to the above direction, the Review Petition is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.