IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 599 of 2009(L) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10758/2009 Dated 23/05/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.P.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, HOUSE NUMBER 308, CHIRAKONAM LANE, PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 523. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, "A"WING, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE NATIONAL FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DISCOVERY OF INDIA, NEHRU CENTRE, DR.A.BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400016. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BHAVANI MANSION NO.III, IVTH STREET, N.H.ROAD, CHENNAI. 4. P.P.MATH, REGIONAL MANAGER AND MANAGER IN CHARGE, NATIONAL FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: JMA P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- R.P.No.599 of 2009 in 10758 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated 1st July, 2009 ORDER Heard Sri.C.M.Stephen, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner. 2. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner was relieved by Ext.P2 order dated 23.6.2008 after Ext.P5 representation dated 20.6.2008 submitted by him to the Managing Director of the National Film Development Corporation Ltd. to retain him in Mumbai was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to dispose of Ext.P5. As regards Ext.P4, the request therein is for payment of special allowance of Rs.250/= per month which the Branch Officer of the National Film Development Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram Branch was drawing. The petitioner's case is that he has not been paid special allowance that was being paid to the Branch Officer at Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P1 discloses that the petitioner was posted as Personal Assistant at Thiruvananthapuram. He has not pleaded or proved that he has been posted as Branch Officer at Thiruvananthapuram. I therefore find no merit in the request made by him in Ext.P4. I am therefore satisfied R.P.599/2009 in WP(C).10758/2009. 2 that no grounds have been made out to review the judgment delivered by me on 23.5.2009 in W.P.(C)No.10758 of 2009 . The review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS