Vasanthakumari P v. The State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2015/17TH ASHADHA, 1937 RP.No. 9 of 2015 () IN WA.1758/2013 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1758/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 07-07-2014 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC: ---------------------------------------- VASANTHAKUMARI P MOOZHIYIL VEEDU, CHEKKAKONAM.P.O, KARAKULAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC: ----------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD(KELTRON) KELTRON COMPLEX, KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695564 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS R2 BY ADV. SRI.BINU MATHEW R2 BY ADV. SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) R2 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS R2 BY ADV. SRI.ISAAC THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.NOBY THOMAS CYRIAC R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX IN RP.9/15 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A: THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 29.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE NAVAJEEVAN NTUROPTHY HOSPITAL, TO THE PETITIONER.

/TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

----------------------------------- R.P.No.9 of 2015 in W.A.No.1758 of 2013 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2015

O R D E R

Antony Dominic, J.

1.Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and standing counsel for the second respondent.

2.By judgment dated 7.7.2014, writ appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of directing that she be paid 1/3rd of the arrears of backwages for the period she was kept out of service following the illegal order of termination issued by the employer. In this review petition, the petitioner says that the said order restricting her back wages to 1/3rd was an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, should be reviewed.

3.The judgment itself shows that this Court has restricted the backwages to 1/3rd of the wages taking note of the fact that the employer is a company which is deep in red and has been suffering losses for

RP.9/15 several years. Although this factual situation prevails even now, still, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is only a Sweeper and also considering the financial hardships that are urged in the petition and before us, we think, ends of justice require that 1/3rd in the judgment be enhanced to 50%. The review petition is disposed of modifying the judgment in the writ petition accordingly.

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.

Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge.

kkb.