IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURALE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No. 1168 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23561/2005 DATED 21/08/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------------------ A.GOVINDAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, (UNDER ORDERS OF DISMISSAL), SRI.SAI HOUSE, T.C.55/2215(1), SAI NAGAR, VISWAMBHARAN ROAD, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R2 BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.), SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA & SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1168 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. A judicial officer being aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P8 orders issued by the State Government dated 16.9.2003 and 16.5.2005 respectively, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23561 of 2005. Though several contentions were raised in support of the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, the petitioner had confined the writ petition only for payment of pension. This is evident from the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge keeping in view, that, once a person is dismissed from service, he is not entitled for any monetary benefit, has rightly rejected the writ petition. (2) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has now presented this writ appeal. (3) Before we proceed to decide the lis, we intend to refer to paragraph 2 of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The same is as under: “2. At the time when the case was taken up for hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not argue for the reliefs that are prayed for in the petition, but confined his prayer to the eligibility of the petitioner for being paid pension.” (emphasis supplied by us) W.A.No.1168 of 2008 2 (4) Keeping in view that a person who is dismissed from service is not entitled to any monetary benefit, as we have already stated, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. (5) Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a review petition, inter alia, requesting the Court to review the orders passed earlier. The learned Single Judge has once again referred to the submission made by the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner at the time of hearing of the writ petition and thereafter has rejected the review petition. (6) In view of these developments, in our opinion, the relief sought for by the appellant in this writ appeal can never be granted by any Court. Accordingly, this writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns