IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 839 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19831/2011 dated 5/8/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 3RD PARTY: --------------------------------------------------------- JOHN THOMAS M., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR/TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI. P.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.L.GEORGE, DIARY EXTENSION OFFICER, DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI - 685 508. 2. G.CHACKO, DIARY EXTENSION OFFICER, DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. SAJJAYAN.S., DIARY EXTENSION OFFICER, DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ANCHALUMOODU, KOLLAM - 691 001. 4. HEMA KUMAR, DIARY EXTENSION OFFICER, DIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 502. Kss .2/- ...2.... RP.NO.839/2011 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE (DIARY) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 6. THE DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, DIRECTORATE OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN 5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. USHA M.G. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss RP.NO.839/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE: ANNEX.A: COPY OF FINAL GRADATION LIST OF DIARY EXTENSION OFFICERS. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 839 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C).No. 19831 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 ORDER The review petitioner was not a party to W.P.(C).No.19831 of 2011 which was disposed of as per judgment dated 5.8.2011. The writ petitioners who are Dairy Extension Officers approached this Court on being aggrieved by the delay in the matter of consideration of Ext.P4 representation. Essentially, their claim was for retrospective promotion with effect from 1994, 1995 and 1996 respectively. The writ petitioners have produced Exts.P6 and P7 to contend that claims of certain similarly situated persons were favourably considered by the official respondents. Taking into account such circumstances and also considering the pendency of Ext.P4 representation, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the Government to consider Ext.P4 representation within the time stipulated therein. The review petitioner submits that a favourable consideration of the claim of the writ petitioners would prejudicially affect the review petitioner and about 100 similarly situated persons and therefore, prays for a direction to the Government to hear them as well R.P.839/11 in W.P.(C) 19831/11 2 while Ext.P4 representation is being taken up for consideration. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, learned counsel for the writ petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Review petitioner has produced the final gradation list of Dairy Extension Officers as Annexure-A along with the review petition. It is specifically stated in paragraph 5 of the review petition that the name of the review petitioner has been included at serial No.16 in Annexure- A whereas the names of the writ petitioners are included therein only at serial Nos.116 to 119. Further it is stated that if the writ petitioners are granted notional promotion with retrospective effect, it would adversely affect the review petitioner as also more than 100 persons. Taking into account the aforesaid aspects, I am of the view that the aforesaid limited prayer of the review petitioner is only just and proper. In the circumstances, there will be a further direction to the first respondent in the writ petition to issue notice calling for objections, if any, against Ext.P4 representation from the review petitioners as also from those who are likely to be affected in case of favourable order on Ext.P4 representation before passing orders thereon. Needless to say that orders on Ext.P4 representation shall be R.P.839/11 in W.P.(C) 19831/11 3 passed only after considering such representation/representations. Judgment dated 5.8.2011 shall stand modified to be above extent. C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) spc R.P.839/11 in W.P.(C) 19831/11 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010