IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1353 of 2009() AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.2567/2009 Dated 16/02/2009 APPELLANTS: (RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION) 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, DTO, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, ATO, THODUPUZHA. 4. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, ATO, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, STANDING COUNSEL, K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENTS: (PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION) 1. N. SOMAN, S/O.P.NEELAKANDA KAIMAL, AGED 55 YEARS, RETIRED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KSRTC, DTO, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT POURNAMI TEMPLE ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. P.M.GEORGE, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 55 YEARS, RETIRED HEAD VEHICLE SUPERVISOR, KSRTC, ATO, THODUPUZHA, RESIDING AT PARAPURATH HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. 3. V.P.VIJAYAN PILLAI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR AGED 55 YEARS, RETIRED INSPECTOR, KSRTC, ATO, PERUMBAVOOR, RESIDING AT RETNA VILAS, POOPANI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR.P.O. 4. K.C.GEORGE, S/O.K.P.CHACKO, AGED 55 YEARS, RETIRED MECHANIC, KSRTC, ATO, PERUMBAVOOR, RESIDING AT KARIKUDY P.O., IRINGOL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1353 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The writ petitioners approached this Court, praying to release the leave surrender salary to them. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation undertook before the learned Single Judge that the amounts will be paid within two months from the date of the judgment. Relying on that undertaking, the Writ Petition was disposed of. Now, this appeal is filed stating that no such undertaking was given. The statement in the judgment is conclusive proof of what happened in the court. If anybody is disputing that, the remedy available to him is to move the concerned court in review. W.A. NO. 1353/2009 2 In view of the said principle, this Writ Appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1353/2009 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.1353/2009 JUDGMENT 6th July, 2009 W.A. NO. 1353/2009 4