IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 941 of 2009(D) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8433/2008 Dated 05/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ IST RESPONDENT IN THE WPC: ------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.T.T. MUHAMOOD, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & R2 IN THE WPC. --------------------------------------------------- 1. M.N.MOHANAN,S/O.NARAYANAN, RETIRED COURT KEEPER, DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. 2. DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. BY MR.S.K. BALACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- Review Petition No.941 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No.8433 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009. O R D E R In this review petition, the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.8433/2008 is sought to be reviewed by relying upon Annexure R1 produced along with I.A.No.622/2009. 2. The writ petitioner relinquished his promotion permanently going by the endorsement in Annexure R1. It is therefore, contended that the writ petitioner is not entitled for grade promotion for the reason that he relinquished his regular promotion. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that in G.O.(P)No.1100/95/(68)/Fin. dated 22.12.1995, the Government has issued a further clarification in relation to the relinquishment of promotion by last grade servants. It is ordered therein that in terms of relevant orders, time bound higher grade will not be granted in respect of employees who relinquished their regular R.P.No.941/2009 2 promotion. But, as regards last grade employees, their promotion to the post of Attender cannot be considered as a regular promotion and therefore, the last grade employees who relinquished their promotion permanently in the post of Attender can be granted time bound higher grade benefits. 4. In the light of the above, the stand taken in the review petition cannot be said to be correct also. Learned Government Pleader contended that apart from relinquishment of promotion, the writ petitioner had also sought for reversion even though that was never effected. The representation filed by the writ petitioner is not produced herein. But, as it is admitted that the writ petitioner was never reverted, the endorsement dated 24.02.1989 contained in Annexure R1 cannot have any adverse effect. Still further it is not clear whether he had sought for reversion from the existing post of Court Keeper. Normally, the prayer would have been to relinquish the promotion to the post of Attender and to revert him to the post of Court Keeper. As reversion was never effected, then the same cannot be taken against the writ petitioner. R.P.No.941/2009 3 Therefore, the review petition is dismissed. The period fixed in the judgment for passing orders will stand modified and the respondents in the writ petition will pass appropriate orders and disburse the monetary benefits to the writ petitioner within a period of three months from today. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp