IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2007 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1929 RP.No. 370 of 2007(D) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23980/2005 Dated 28/02/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- A.K.RAJAN, S/O.RAMAN KUMARAN, AKKAPARAMBU HOUSE, ANGAMALY SOUTH P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.A.K.RAJAN (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATON, KAKKANAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KARUKUTTY. 3. THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KALLOORKKADU. 4. THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KEEZHUMADU. 5. THE SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, MULAVUKAD. 6. THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PARAKKADAVU. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER BASANT BALAJI SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.370/2007 in W.P.(C).NO.23980/2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12h day of April, 2007 O R D E R This is a review petition filed by the petitioner mainly seeking for fixing a time limit for disposal of his representation as per the directions contained in paragraph 5 of the judgment. It is stated that pursuant to the directions of this court, he has filed appeals before the concerned authority. It is also stated that he has filed a representation before the first respondent on 6.3.2007. If such a representation is received and is pending, the first respondent will pass orders after hearing the petitioner and the concerned Panchayats, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner has got a further contention that he is entitled for the benefit of Group Insurance Scheme and State Life Insurance and there was a prayer in the writ petition concerning that also. The petitioner had not argued for these at the time of disposal of the writ petition. The said issue is left open. The Review Petition is disposed of accordingly. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/