IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 729 of 2009(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9987/2009 Dated 30/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE STATION COMMANDER, STATION HEAD QUARTERS, PANGODE, THIRUMALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. STATION STAFF OFFICER, STATION HEAD QUARTERS, PANGODE, THIRUMALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/APPLICANT ---------------------------------------------------------------- D.RAJU, EX-SUBEDAR (HON. SUBEDAR MAJOR), GROCERY IN CHARGE (TERMINATED FROM SERVICE), STATION CANTEEN, TRIVANDRUM, EXTENSION COUNTER, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT 'KAILASAM', ROYAL NAGAR-85, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- R.P.729 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.9987 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 24th June, 2011. O R D E R Joseph, J. Today also, there is no representation for the respondent. Petitioners in the Writ Petition are the review petitioners. The Writ Petition was filed, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, by which the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondent/applicant on the ground that before the respondent's service was terminated, neither was given one month's salary nor an opportunity in terms of the relevant provisions of the contract. This court confirmed the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal. 2. We heard learned counsel for the review petitioners. There is no representation, as noted, for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that even at the time when the Tribunal passed the order, the original period for which the applicant/respondent was appointed on contract was over and this Court had passed an interim order directing payment of salary for the remaining period of four months. It is pointed out that four month's salary R.P.729/09 2 was ordered to be given, which was given. In this connection, he would point out that the termination took place on 5.2.2008 and the contract period was to expire on 9.5.2008. Therefore, even if the contentions of the applicant/respondent were accepted, he would have been entitled to the relief, which was granted by passing of the interim order, which in fact stands implemented and the court ought not have confirmed the order of the Tribunal as such is petitioners' case. In such circumstances, we allow the Review Petition and post the Writ Petition for hearing. Sd/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sd/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. tgs (True copy)