IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 756 of 2006() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.33106/2000 Dated 25/01/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------------- KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SMT.P.JAYA, SC, AGRL. UNIVERSITY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- SALINA DEVASSY, KUNNATH ENOKKARAN HOUSE, NATTISSERI P.O., PANCHAKAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.P.RAMAKRISHNAN MR. K. P. MUJEEB THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No.756 OF 2006 in O.P.No.33106 of 2000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 24th day of February 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ O R D E R O.P.No.33106 of 2000 was disposed of by this Court on 25/1/2006 by the following judgment: “The original petition is filed with the following prayers:- a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to grant proper pay fixation in view of the terms of Ext.P2 settlement and to pay arrears of pay forthwith. b) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P4. c) hold that the petitioner is to be fitted in the pay- scale 875-1820 instead of 745-1370. 2. There is no counter affidavit. In Ext.P1 proceedings of the University, the estate where the petitioner worked was granted higher scale of 90/100-5- 125-6-155-EB-7-253. Coming to Ext.P4 there is a somersault and the stand taken is that the estate is a medium one. I quash Ext.P4. There will be a direction to the second respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P5 in the light of the status of the estate referred to in Ext. P1 as a large and grant consequential benefits. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above.” R.P. No.756 OF 2006 in O.P.No.33106 of 2000 -2- The respondent University has now filed this Review Petition contending that the estate in question was reclassified as a medium estate and therefore the judgment is to be reviewed. But even along with the Review Petition, no documents proving that there was a reclassification have been produced. The University wants to satisfy me that there was a reclassification based on Ext.P4. Ext.P4 was already there in the original petition and the learned Judge had considered that also while passing the judgment. As such that is not a ground for reviewing the judgment. 2. In the above circumstances, I do not find any valid ground for reviewing the judgment dated 25/1/2006. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE nl.