IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 1151 of 2010(U) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18237/2008 Dated 17/11/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS IN WP --------------------------------------- 1. V.A.SOBHANAKUMARI, FINANCE OFFICER (RETIRED), KSEB, PANACHIYIL HOUSE, PALLITHAZHAM, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. KUMARI PAUL, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED), KSEB, KARAPILIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM. 3. P.KANAKAMMA, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED), KSEB, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGOM, THRIPPUNITHURA - 682 301. 4. P.VILASINI AMMA, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED), KSEB, PARASATHY, SNRA-63, SASTHRI NAGAR, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP -------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KSE BOARD, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI. K.S. ANIL, S.C. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 1151 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 22nd day of December, 2010. O R D E R This review petition is filed by the petitioners seeking review of my judgment dated 17.11.2009 in the writ petition. By that writ petition, for disbursal of additional gratuity due to the petitioners, I imposed a condition that the petitioners should execute a bond with 2 serving employees as sureties for due repayment of the amounts so received, if ultimately, the Supreme Court decides in favour of the Board. That condition was imposed on the basis of a Division Bench judgment in similar cases. The petitioners now submit that subsequently, the very same Division Bench had relaxed the said condition permitting similar employees to provide other security instead of the bond with two serving employees as sureties. The petitioners therefore seek relaxation of that condition by reviewing the judgment in accordance with the subsequent Division Bench decision. 2. I have heard the standing counsel for the Board also. 3. In view of the fact that the Division Bench had subsequently relaxed the condition, I am inclined to review my judgment to that extent. Accordingly, the judgment would stand reviewed to the extent of directing the petitioners to execute a bond with two serving employees of the Board as sureties; instead, the petitioners are permitted to provide adequate security to the satisfaction of the respondents for disbursal of the additional gratuity. The review petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.