IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 398 of 2008(H) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.78/2000 DATED 14/09/2007. .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT 1 & 2 IN OP: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N. SUDHA DEVI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & R3 IN THE OP: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THULASEEDHARAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN, HEAD CLERK, ARYANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, (RESIDING AT DEEPTI, PARUTHIPPALLY, KUTTICHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, ARYANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... R.P.NO. 398 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 ORDER The short issue raised for decision in this review petition is that the writ petitioner had, as a matter of fact, retired after being reverted in terms of the order that was challenged in O.P.78 of 2000. 2. On 3.1.2000, this court issued an interim order of stay of reversion on CMP 98 of 2000. Ultimately, the judgment sought to be reviewed was issued recording that the petitioner had been reverted and therefore the fact situation is that he retired without being reverted. Hence the O.P was closed directing that the status quo as on the date of retirement of the petitioner will govern the fixation of his retiral benefits. 3. Obviously, the status of the petitioner Rp 398/08 2 as on the date of retirement will govern the fixation of his retiral benefits. Therefore, the decision rendered by this court in the judgment sought to be reviewed does not call for any interference. But there could be confusion with the penultimate sentence in the judgment sought to be reviewed, which is to the effect that the interim order passed on 3.1.2000 had stayed the operation of reversion of the petitioner. The plea of the State Government is that even before that order of stay was issued, the reversion had actually taken effect and the petitioner had gone to the reverted cadre. If that were so, status quo obtained as on the date of retirement is that the petitioner shall be a member of the reverted cadre. Hence retiral benefits could be granted only in accordance with that. With that clarification, the review petition is allowed, Rp 398/08 3 deleting the penultimate sentence in the judgment dated 14.9.2007 in O.P.78 of 2009. No costs. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/11/12