IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 798 of 2010(U) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8580/2004 Dated 19/02/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. V.H.S.S., PIRAPPANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ASHA. K.S., RESIDING AT ALPHA COTTAGE, PUTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R SRI.SAJU JOHN FOR R THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 798 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th day of December, 2010. O R D E R The State seeks review of my judgment dated 19.2.2010 in W.P (C).No. 8580/2004, wherein I had directed the State to pay to the petitioner salary as Lecturer in Physics in the scale of pay of Rs. 6675- 10550 for the period from April, 2002 to June 2003. The review is sought on two grounds. The first is that since the petitioner's services were terminated on 30.3.2002 and she was reinstated as per the interim order dated 3.5.2002, she is not entitled to salary for the period from 31.3.2002 to 2.5.2002 as she did not work during the period. The second is that since the petitioner was appointed only as a Guest Lecturer, the petitioner is not entitled to salary in the scale of pay, but only on hourly basis. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition also. 3. As far as the first contention is concerned, the petitioner in the writ petition would contend that she actually attended to examination duty as an invigilator during April and therefore she must be deemed to have been in service during vacation also. As far as the other contention is concerned, the petitioner would contend that the document now produced cannot be relied upon, which is only an attendance register, which will not prove the matter either way. The petitioner has also produced some documents in support of her contentions. 4. I have considered the rival contentions i detail. 5. As far as the first contention is concerned, I am inclined to review my judgment insofar as the petitioner has not worked for the period from 31.3.2002 to 2.5.2002. However, in respect of the other, R.P.. No. 798/2010. -: 2 :- I do not find any reason to review my judgment. Accordingly, this review petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner will not be entitled to vacation salary as such for the period from 31.3.2002 to 2.5.2002. However, the petitioner will be entitled to the remuneration for the invigilation work done by the petitioner. In respect of all other issues, the judgment would stand. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.