IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 655 of 2010(U) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.970/2010 Dated 11/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- VALSALA BABY (RTD. SELECTION GRADE LECTURER), ALPHONSA COLLEGE, PALA, RESIDING AT EDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHETHIMATTOM, PALA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.V.R.REKESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, ALPHONSA COLLEGE, PALA. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.V.MANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No. 655/2010 in W.P.(C).No. 970/2010 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner seeks review of my judgment dated 11.3.2010 in W.P.(C).No.970/2010. In the same, accepting the contention of the respondents that the retirement benefits due to the petitioner have been paid and the same have been accepted by the petitioner, I dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner has now filed this review petition alleging that the writ petition was in respect of payment of UGC and DA arrears also, which have not been paid. Therefore, in respect of those amounts, the judgment is liable to be reviewed, is the contention. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. In the writ petition, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are as follows; “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any writ or order directing the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits to the petitioner immediately with interest at the rate of 13% per annum, ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the delay/denial of retirement benefits at the rate of Rs.100/- per day from the date of retirement till the date of effecting payment.” The reliefs are only in respect of the retirement benefits due to the petitioner. DA and UGC arrears are not retirement benefits. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition has r.p.655/2010 2 been appropriately considered in the judgment. That being so, no grounds have been made out by the petitioner for review of the judgment. However, I make it clear that it would be open to the petitioner to seek her remedies regarding DA and UGC arrears appropriately, if any. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge