IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 1151 of 2008(R) -------------------------------- (JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.8761/2007 DATED 23/05/2008) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------- T.V.KUNHIKANNAN, PERINGALA, CHITTADI P.O., ALACODE VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.SASINDRAN. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. PADIOTCHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO.F.1519, P.O. PADIOTCHAL, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY MR.T.K.VIPINDAS, S.C, ADV.MR.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. V. MANU, R3 BY MR. P.V. MOHANAN, S.C. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.1151/2008 in W.P.(C).8761/2007-R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009. O R D E R 1.The petitioner retired from the service of the first respondent. He filed a writ petition complaining that his retiral benefits are not released and his pension papers have not been forwarded to the Pension Board. The employer first respondent, though served with notice, had not appeared in the writ petition. I had noticed in paragraph 5 of the judgment dated 23.5.2008 that the first respondent shows no sustainable reason for non-disbursing the retiral benefits. However, the ultimate direction in the writ petition was in relation to the forwarding of pension papers for due process. 2.With the passage of time, this review petition is filed on the premise that in spite of the RP1151/08 -: 2 :- aforesaid observation regarding the non- disbursement of retiral benefits, in paragraph 5 of the judgment in the writ petition, in the absence of a specific direction to release the retiral benefits, the first respondent employer is refusing to release the retiral benefits. In the normal course of events, this would have triggered this Court to grant a clarificatory order that there is really no room for the first respondent to refuse to pay the retiral benefits. But, in answer to the review petition, the first respondent has placed on record the judgment in the appeal filed by it in which the Division Bench has recorded that the direction in the judgment dated 23.5.2008 is only to forward the pension papers and therefore, it does not call for any interference. Not only that, it is now placed on record that there were other disputes between the parties relating to removal of service, reinstatement etc. which are either pending before the Labour Court under the I.D.Act RP1151/08 -: 3 :- or before the Co-operative Tribunal. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, I do not deem it appropriate to pin down the first respondent employer in this review petition to any finding as regards the last pay drawn or other benefits which could be the yardsticks for determining the pension or other retiral benefits. Leaving open all rights of the review petitioner (writ petitioner) to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/090709 -true copy- P.S.to Judge.