Kerala High Court
The Managing Director vs P.K.Ramakrishnan on 28 July, 2011
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2012/8TH JYAISHTA 1934
RP.No. 344 of 2012 (C) IN WPC/10943/2006
-----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN .NO./ IN WPC.10943/2006 DATED 28-07-2011
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:
---------------------------------------
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
JALA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PH DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,VADAKARA
KOZHIKODE.
3. THE RESIDENT AUDIT OFFICER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JOHN, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHOR
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER./RESPONDENT NO.1:
------------------------------------------
1. P.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
PLUMBER (HIGHER GRADE), PH SECTION, PURAMERI
VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
2. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
SRI.P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASRI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-05-
2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
-----------------------------------
R.P. No.344 of 2012
in
W.P.(C).10943 of 2006
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2012
ORDER
The Managing Director, Water Authority and two of its officers have filed this review petition seeking review of my judgment dated, 28.7.2011 in W.P.(C).No.10943 of 2006. In the same, I have directed as follows:
The respondents have no case that if at all there is a mistake, the petitioner has contributed to that mistake in fixation 1.10.1977 as the date of his regularization in service. I am of opinion that it is totally unjust to direct such low paid employees to refund to the tune of Rs.1,09,590/-, especially when the petitioner has not contributed to the alleged mistake. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to permit the respondents to recover the amount from the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 order is quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is not liable to refund the said amount. The review petition is filed on the premise that because, I have stated in the judgment that the writ petition is allowed, the stand taken by the 1st respondent is that all the R.P. No.344 of 2012 2 prayers in the writ petition have been allowed. It is submitted that on that premise a contempt case has also been filed.
2. I have heard both sides. My intention in passing the judgment was only to grant the relief specifically mentioned in paragraph 4 of my judgment quoted above. In the circumstance, the last paragraph of the judgment is modified as follows:
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as above. Ext.P9 order is quashed to that extent. It is declared that the petitioner is not liable to refund the said amount.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE pm