IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 842 of 2011(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6023/2007 Dated 14/06/2011 .......................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S) : ---------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER (HR & CE), MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, P.O.ERAHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE – 673 006. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (HR & CE), MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, P.O., ERAHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE – 673 006. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (REVENUE), DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, KIZHUR SIVA TEMPLE, MELADY, KOYILANDY TALUK – 679 501., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. K.KUNHIKANNAN, S/O.KANARAN, KAKKALAT HOUSE, P.O.KILLUR, PAYYOLI, KOYILANDY – 679 501. R1 BY ADV.SRI.S JAMAL, GOVT. PLEADER BY ADVS.SRI.K LAKSHMINARAYANAN, SRI.JULIAN XAVIER. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMV S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.842 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.6023 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 ORDER This review petition is filed by the Commissioner (HR & CE) and another seeking review of my judgment dated 14.6.2011 in W.P.(C) No.6023/2007. Their grievance is that my direction therein directing the 4th respondent in the writ petition namely, the Board of Trustees of the temple, in which, the petitioner in the writ petition was employed, to pay gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act is unsustainable. 2. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in the review petition, which is the Board of Trustees of the temple, points out that the petitioner in the writ petition had filed a writ appeal in which my judgment has been confirmed. Therefore, according to him, no review petition is maintainable. It is further R.P.No.842/11 2 submitted that the petitioners in the review petition are not in any way aggrieved, since the direction is to the Board of Trustees of the temple to pay gratuity to the employee concerned. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The only contention raised by the petitioners in the review petition is that since there are separate rules for payment of gratuity, the Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable. But, there is no contention that the temple will not come within the purview of the Payment of Gratuity Act. In fact, recently a Division Bench of this Court has held that employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board, who are also covered by the Kerala Service Rules in the matter of payment of DCRG, are covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act. The ratio of that decision would be applicable to this case also. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to review my judgment and accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd R.P.No.842/11 3 R.P.No.842/11 4