IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 285 of 2011(H) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7077/2011 Dated 08/03/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- V.SASIDHARAN NAIR, (INSPECTOR, KSRTC, PEROORKADA DEPOT,RETIRED ON 30-11-2008), KRISHNAKRIPA, AGRA-82, NCC ROAD, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 023 BY ADV.SRI.V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC FOR KSRTC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P No. 285 of 2011 in W.P(C) No.7077 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 5th day of April, 2011 ORDER The writ petitioner is the review petitioner. In the writ petition the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to quantify and disburse the benefits of 1997 and 2006 pay revision and also the terminal leave surrender benefits to the petitioner. The fact that the review petitioner was seeking for the aforesaid relief has been taken note of in the judgment. However, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to quantify and then, disburse the benefits of pay revision in terms of the Bipartite Settlement and also in the light of the decision in W.P(C) No.34325 of 2010 and connected matters. However, with respect to the entitlement of the petitioner for leave terminal/ leave surrender salary, no specific direction has been issued. It is in the said circumstances that the above review petition has been filed. 2. Evidently this Court has specifically taken note of the reliefs sought for in the opening part of the judgment. R.P No. 285 of 2011 in W.P(C) No.7077 of 2011 -: 2 :- However, in the operative portion of the judgment, the entitlement of otherwise to the petitioner as regards the claim of terminal leave surrender benefits has not been mentioned. When such an omission is brought to the notice of this Court, interest of justice demands, it is liable to be corrected. In the said circumstances, the judgment dated 8.3.2011 is modified and a further direction is issued to the respondent to consider the entitlement of the petitioner to the terminal leave surrender benefits and to grant the admissible benefits thereunder within a period of one month from the date of such quantification. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 8.3.2011, is modified to the said extent. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK