IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 941 of 2009(D)
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.N.MOHANAN,S/O.NARAYANAN,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT JUDGE,ERNAKULAM.
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :26/11/2009
O R D E R
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