IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 RP.No. 1025 of 2008(V) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.9843/2004 Dated 18/12/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC 9843/2004 -------------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF IINDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TELECOMMUNICATIOS, BSNL, STATESMAN BUILDING, NEW DELHI. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, BSNL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, ERNAKULAM, BSNL BHAVAN, KOCHI - 682016 BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN WPC 9843/2004 ------------------------------------------- 1. M.THAMPY CHERIAN, AGED 55 YEARS S/O. M.P. CHERIAN, TELECOM TECHINICAL ASSISTANT, CSR EXCHANGE, KOCHI-16, RESIDING AT 26/1026, JANATHA ROAD, VYTILLA. 2. A.A.ABDULKHADER AGED 56 YEARS, TELECOM TECHINICAL ASSISTANT, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, MALAYATTUR, RESIDING AT ANJIKKATT HOUSE, P.O.SOUTH VELLARAPPILLY, SREEMOOLA NAGRAM, ERNAKULAM DT. 3. G.R.FRANCIS AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. M.R.FRANCIS, TELECOM TECHINICAL ASSISTANT, A/C.POWER, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, PALARIVATTOM RESIDING AT 36/1448, SONSILA, NORTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI -682025. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1025 OF 2008 IN W.P(C).No.9843 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Though belated, this review petition is filed seeking intervention with the judgment issued on 18.12.2007, whereby, it was held that the transfer orders which were subject matter of the writ petition amounted to tenure transfers which are transfers made for a fixed particular tenure. That issue arose for decision because the further question was as to what would be the nature of allowance that would be entitled to such transferees. The question of allowance depended entirely on the question whether the transfers were tenure transfers or not. The issue regarding the quality of the transfer orders were pointedly considered and answered by this Court in the judgment sought to be reviewed. There is no error apparent on the face of that judgment and the finding cannot be upset except on a re- appreciation of the materials. That, in my view, is impermissible in this application for review. Hence, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.