IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 481 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.2104/2007 Dated 09/04/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- T.C.ROY, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BRANCH OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS ------------------------- 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGISTERED & HEAD OFFICE, 24, WHITES ROAD, MADRAS-600 014. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OPPOOTTIL BUILDINGS, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DOCTORS TOWERS, M.C.ROAD, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No.481 of 2010 in W.A.No.2104 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 ORDER Ravikumar, J. The respondent in the writ appeal is the review petitioner. The review petitioner has challenged Ext.P5 order whereby he was found not entitled to non-core allowance for the financial year 1999- 2000 and proposed to adjust the excess cost incurred to the tune of Rs.45,496/- from his salary for the month of June, 1999 onwards, in the writ petition. The learned single Judge set aside Ext.P5 order and as per the judgment in the writ appeal it was held that Ext.P5 order was not liable to be set aside and consequently reversed the judgment and dismissed the writ petition. As per the judgment in the writ appeal, after referring to the relevant provisions, it was found that the review petitioner herein could not succeed in his claim for non-core allowance based on the premium obtained from the business in question with MRF Ltd. The review petitioner is seeking review of the said judgment in the writ appeal. In grounds `A' to `C' raised in this review petition, the petitioner contends that the matter requires re-consideration. In R.P.No.481/2010 2 fact, a scanning of the said grounds undoubtedly reveal that it is an appeal in disguise. There cannot any doubt that a judgment cannot be re-written in exercise of review jurisdiction. The review petitioner has failed to bring to our attention any error apparent on the face of the record for compelling us to exercise the review jurisdiction and according to us, the grounds raised fall beyond the purview of the said jurisdiction. This review petition is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER Judge C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS