IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 267 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32797/2008 Dated 09/10/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. V.K.RAJAN (FORMERLY PLANT SUPERVISOR, KERALA SOAPS AND OILS LTD.-C NO.2653) NANDANAM P.O., KAKKAYANGAD, KANNUR-670673. 2. THE KERALA SOAPS AND OILS LTD., REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673 005. ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.267 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32797 OF 2008 (D) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Review of the judgment in WP(C) No. 32797/08, directing the petitioner to make an application for the benefit of Exts.P11 to P13 VRS Scheme and ordering its consideration, is sought for. 2. The contention raised is that on a previous occasion, when by Annexure 1, VRS scheme was announced, the petitioner had applied for the benefit, and that this Court passed Ext.P9 interim order in OP 7035/97 filed by the petitioner, directed its consideration. It is stated that Ext.P9 interim order was made absolute and OP 7035/97 was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner having applied for the benefit of Annexure 1 scheme could not have been directed to be extended the benefit of Exts.P11 to P13, a subsequent scheme. 3. However, on the review petitioner's own showing, it is obvious that the application made by the petitioner for the benefit of Annexure 1 scheme was not considered and orders were not RP No.267/10 :2 : passed. It was therefore that this Court allowed the petitioner to apply for the benefit of Exts.P11 to P13, the subsequent scheme and directed its consideration. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner had applied for the benefit of Annexure 1, cannot result in depriving the petitioner the benefit of Exts.P11 to P13, for the reason that the previous application made by the petitioner was not even considered by the authorities. 4. In that view of the mater, I do not see any error in the judgment warranting its review. Review Petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp