K.S.E.Board v. P.K.Chathu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/23RD ASWINA, 1937 RP.No. 271 of 2010 ( ) IN WP(C).27910/2008 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27910/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 03-12-2009 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
---------------------------------------------------
1. K.S.E.BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HRM),KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VADAKARA. SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
-------------------------------------------------- P.K.CHATHU ELECTRICAL SECTION, VADAKARA, RESIDING AT PATTIYATTU POIL, MEMUNDA.P.O, VADAKARA KOZHIKODE.
R BY SRI.P.M.PAREETH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-102015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.N. Ravindran, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.271 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.27910 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th October, 2015
O R D E R
The prayer in this review petition is to review and recall the judgment delivered by me on 3.12.2010 in W.P.(C) No.27910 of 2008. The review petitioners are the respondents in the writ petition and the sole respondent in the review petition is the petitioner therein.
2. The issue that arose before me in the writ petition was whether paragraph 11 of Ext.P2 order issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board protects only the pension component or whether it protects the dearness relief on pension. Interpreting paragraph 11 of Ext.P2, I held that paragraph 11 of Ext.P2 protects the pension that the writ petitioner was drawing prior to Ext.P2 and the dearness relief component as well. A review is sought on the ground that the dearness relief component which the petitioner has claimed, was in excess of his eligibility. That was not an issue which arose before me or which was decided by me. The only question which I have decided is whether paragraph 11 of
RP 271/2010 Ext.P2 protects only the pension component or the dearness relief component as well. If, as contended by the review petitioners, the writ petitioner has made an erroneous claim regarding the amount payable by way of dearness relief, that is a matter in respect of which the Board can take appropriate action having regard to the rate of dearness relief payable to the writ petitioner.
With the above observation, the review petition is dismissed. ( P.N. Ravindran, Judge.) kav/