IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 1257 of 2007(A) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10292/2006 Dated 25/10/2007 REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN WPC -------------------------------------------------------- THE CORPORATE MANAGER, ST.FRANCIS SCHOOLS MATTOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------- 1. JOE LAWRANCE, S/O.LAWRANCE, HSA, ST.FRANCIS, HSS, MATTOM, VELUTHUKKAREN HOUSE, P.O.ARIYANNUR, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, ALONG WITH RP NO. 1258 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P.Nos. 1257 & 1258 of 2007 in W. P (C) Nos. 10292 & 15171 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th July, 2008. O R D E R These review petitions are filed seeking review of my common judgment in W.P(C) Nos. 10292 and 15191 of 2006, disposing of both the writ petitions. The main ground urged for review of my judgment is that the notice to the 4th respondent who is the review petitioner herein, was accepted by an usurper and therefore the 4th respondent could not appear and contest the matter effectively. In view of the said submission, I entertained these review petitions. The matter was heard today. 2. The main contention raised by the review petitioner in the review petitions is that the termination from service of the petitioners in the writ petitions was originally challenged before this Court in O.P.No. 15631/2002, a copy of the memorandum of writ petition in which is produced along with the counter affidavit in which, according to the review petitioner, there is no prayer for payment of salary. The further submission is that, that original petition was disposed of along with a writ appeal and in that judgment, which is also produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in the review petition, there was no specific direction to pay wages for the period when the petitioners did not work. According to the petitioner in the review petitions, therefore, the petitioners in the writ petition could not have filed the writ petitions seeking salary for the period during which they were kept out of service. He also points out that for non- compliance with the directions in that judgment, a contempt case was filed in which the undertaking of the petitioner in the review petitions was recorded to the effect that the petitioners in the writ petition would be given only benefits due to them. Therefore, R.P. Nos. 1257 & 1258/2007. -: 2 :- according to the petitioner in the review petitions, the petitioners could not have sought for salary for the period during which they were kept out of service. The contention is that, therefore, the judgment is liable to be reviewed. 3. The petitioners in the writ petitions would contend that this is not the actual fact situation. According to them, by the judgment in O.P.No. 15631/2002, their termination from service by the petitioner in the review petitions was held to be illegal and arbitrary and it was held that their appointment should have been approved. It is further submitted that in Ext. P4 judgment in the contempt case, the submission of the petitioner in the review petitions herein was that the petitioners in the writ petition would be given due benefits from the date of original appointment. According to learned counsel, that only has been done in the judgment sought to be reviewed and therefore there is no necessity to review the judgment at all. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench in O.P.No. 15631/2002 reads thus: “ . . . . . We see no ground at all in terminating the services of respondents 2 to 7. Their termination is illegal and arbitrary. Their appointment in the absence of any stay order should have been approved.” After holding that their termination is illegal and arbitrary, it has been specifically held that the appointment of the petitioners in the writ petition in the absence of any stay order should have been approved. Once the appointment is approved, then even without any specific direction in that regard, the petitioners are entitled to salary for the approved service. Further in Ext. P4 judgment in the contempt case, it is specifically directed thus: “It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that petitioners were reinstated. It is also submitted that they will be given due R.P. Nos. 1257 & 1258/2007. -: 3 :- benefits from the date of original appointment. The fact that the petitioners were reinstated is confirmed by the petitioners. Therefore the contempt case is closed.” There also, the petitioner in the review petitions himself has specifically submitted before the Division Bench which passed the judgment in O.P.No. 15631/2002 that the petitioners in the writ petition would be given due benefits from the date of original appointment. Reading these judgments together, I have no doubt that what had been contemplated is payment of salary for the period when the petitioners in the writ petition were kept out of service by the illegal action of the petitioner in the review petitions. Therefore, even after elaborate hearing of the petitioner in the review petitions, I do not find any ground for reviewing my judgment dated 25-10-2007. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.