IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2007 / 7TH ASHADHA 1929 WA.No. 2034 of 2000(D) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.3189/2000 Dated 28/03/2000 .................... APPELLANTS:RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE GOVT. OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MIN. OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (FOOD), MIN. OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, SOUTHERN REGION, 7, ESPLANDE, CHENNAI HOUSE, CHENNAI 108. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC RESPONDENTS:PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 & 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.BHASKARAN, S/O.PACHUKUTTY, KUNDOOR HOUSE, POST CIVIL STATION, CALICUT-20. 2. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOOD CORPN. OF INDIA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, FCI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO.2034/2000 ORDER IN CMP NO.5328 OF 2000 IN WA NO.2034 OF 2000 DISMISSED 28/06/2007 SD/-K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. SD/-ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ. =============================== W.A. NO.2034 OF 2000 ====================== Dated this the 28th day of June, 2007 J U D G M E N T Radhakrishnan, J. The original petition was disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass necessary orders revising the pension of the petitioner as requested in Exts.P3 and P4 letters within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. No appeal was filed and no stay was obtained. No orders have been passed by the respondents. According to the appellants since the first respondent had opted for Industrial D.A., he is not entitled to Central D.A. There is nothing to show that he had opted for Industrial D.A. There was no materials before the learned Single Judge also to hold so. We therefore find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Appeal lacks merits. Hence dismissed. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp