IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 729 of 2011(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19770/2007 Dated 15/10/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT NO.5 ------------------------------------- THE AMBALATHUMBAGOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 2836, AMBALATHUMBAGOM P.O. PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. G. THOMAS, S/O. GEORGE,. AGED 55 YEARS, WORKING AS SENIOR CLERK, THE AMBALATHUMBAGOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 2836, AMBALATHUMBAGOM.P.O, PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM DISTRICT AND R/AT CHARUVILAKIZHAKATHIL, EDAKKAD, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHU TALUK, KOLLAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOLLAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SASTHAMCOTTA. ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 GP M.J.RAJASHREE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... R.P.729/2011 in W.P.(C).19770/2007 .............................................. Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 ORDER The judgment in W.P.(C).19770/2007 is sought to be reviewed by the fifth respondent in the writ petition. Although the averments in the Review Petition do not justify the review of the judgment as such, still I take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the benefits of pay revision that is due under the judgment, were already paid to the first respondent during the pendency of the writ petition itself. Though this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court when the writ petition was heard, having regard to the submission made, it is clarified that if the benefits were already paid, there is no question of further payment. In view of the above, the Review Petition will stand disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs