IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4409 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.T.VARGHESE, INS. No.326972, PANAVELIL, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY MR.V.MANOJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. E.S.I.CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL, E.S.I CORPORATION, C.I.G.ROAD, NEW DELHI. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR, E.S.I. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KURUMPELIL AVENUE, POLAYATHODU, KOLLAM-691 021. 3. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I.CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY MR. P. SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, SC FOR ESI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4409 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that he suffered permanent disability and that benefits arising therefrom as provided under the Employees State Insurance Act were ordered to be given to him by the EI Court as per Ext.P1 order. Accordingly, the petitioner has been receiving the benefits. 2. While so, the petitioner made Ext.P2 claim on the ground that subsequent to his becoming eligible for the benefits, there has been periodical revision in the benefits, and that he should get the benefits of such revisions. On that basis he raised a claim for arrears of Rs.3,17,367/-. It is seen that Ext.P2 representation has been considered and by Ext.P3 reply, the ESI Corporation has informed the petitioner that there has not been any revision as claimed by the petitioner. Ext.P3 also shows that this position was clarified to the petitioner on previous occasions. It is challenging Ext.P3, the writ petition is filed. 3. As noticed, the claim of the petitioner is for the benefits WP(C) No.4409/2009 -2- of the revision of ESI benefits, and this claim can be sustained only if the petitioner is able to establish that there has been revision in the benefits. No material has been produced by the petitioner in support of this contention. In that view of the matter, I have nothing to conclude that the stand taken by the respondents in Ext.P3 rejecting his claim is erroneous. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg