IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 449 of 2008(Y) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10289/2007 Dated 05/12/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- NIKHILA.P.K., AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.LATE SRI.P.K.GANGADHARAN, "ASWATHI", KINASSERI P.O. POKKUNNU, CALICUT - 673 013. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- R.P.449/2008 in W.P.(C).10289/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner, Mr.George Thomas. 2. The contention taken up in the Review petition is rested on Annexure-I. Mr.George Thomas submits that this Court had issued a direction to the Bank to consider any application filed by the petitioner under the 'SBI SCHEME FOR PAYMENT OF EX-GRATIA LUMPSUM AMOUNT', brought into force with effect from 4.8.2005 in terms of Ext.R1(a) or Ext.P3. Apparently, this direction was issued on the premise that the application filed by the petitioner was not disposed of during the currency of the old scheme, but was pending even after the new scheme was brought into force. Sri.George Thomas further submits that a decision to reject the application was taken as early as on 11.5.2005, as evidenced by Annexure-I. 3. I take note of the fact that Ext.R1(a), the communication issued to the petitioner by the Bank R.P.449/2008 2 rejecting the petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate grounds, is obviously the first communication received by the petitioner in this regard. Assuming that the decision had been taken by the competent authority even earlier, may be on 11.5.2005 itself, it becomes operative only when it is actually communicated to the concerned person. In my view, that has happened only on 8.10.2005 vide Ext.R1(a). This is obviously subsequent to the enforcement of the new scheme with effect from 4.8.2005. I do not find my way to review the judgment by changing the view that has already been taken by this Court. Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs