IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 487 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.21536/2008 Dated 20/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): R2 & R3 IN WPC. ------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND ANOTHER. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND PORTS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & R1 IN WPC. -------------------------------------- 1. G.SANTHAMOHAN,RETIRED DEPUTY GENERAL, MANAGER (EXTENSION & MASS COMMUNICATION), RESIDING AT "SOWBHAGYA",ALTHARA ROAD, VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED(MATSYAFED), KURAVANKONAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 ADV.SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P.No.487/2009 in W.P.(C). No.21536/2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 O R D E R This review petition is filed by respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition. As per the interim order in the writ petition dated 20/03/2009, this Court directed the first respondent, namely, the Managing Director to disburse the pensionery benefits within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was clarified that the said disbursal will be subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition. 2. In the review petition, it is pointed out that even though the petitioner was working as Deputy General Manager (E&MC), the said post was not sanctioned by the competent authority. Therefore, he will not be entitled for reckoning the above service for the purpose of calculating the pensionery benefits. 3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that there was no objection regarding the promotion before his retirement. 4. Presently, the direction is to the Managing Director to disburse the amount. The issue whether the post requires sanction or not is a matter to be considered in the writ petition itself. Therefore, the review petitioner R.P.No.487/2009 in W.P.(C). No.21536/2008 -:2:- can raise all such contentions in the writ petition. The review petition is, therefore, disposed of clarifying that while disbursing the amount as directed by this Court, the writ petitioner will file an undertaking before the first respondent that in the event of the writ petition being dismissed or if it is found that he is not entitled for promotion, he will reimburse that portion of amount received as pensionery benefits. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms