IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 773 of 2007(C)
1. T.P.JACOB,(RETIRED VIGILANCE OFFICER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RUBBER BOARD,(MINISTRY OF COMMERCE,
... Respondent
2. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS
3. STATE OF TAMIL NADU,REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANU
For Respondent :SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :20/07/2009
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------------
R.P. No.773/2007 in O.P.No.11995/1998
----------------------------------------------
Dated 20th July, 2009.
O R D E R
C.M.Application No.342/2007 : This is a petition for condonation of
delay of 204 days in filing the appeal. It is seen that the service to
the third respondent is not complete. There was no appearance
for the third respondent when the writ petition itself was pending.
In the nature of the order I propose to pass in the delay petition
and the review petition, it is not necessary to serve notice on the
third respondent. After having heard the counsel appearing for
the respondents 1 and 2, I find that the review petitioner has
made out a case for condonation of delay. Hence the delay is
condoned.
The review petition is at the instance of the writ
petitioner. The writ petition was filed praying for a direction to
the respondents 1 and 2 to grant higher grade to the writ
petitioner with effect from 23.12.1985, and for consequential
refixation of pension. The writ petition was disposed of in the
light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit that if refixation is
made, that would adversely affect the interests of the writ
RP NO.773/2007 2
petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner
submits that the same is apparently due to a mistake of fact. It is
also submitted that the counsel had instruction from the writ
petitioner to file reply, but unfortunately owing to an inadvertent
omission on his part, reply could not be filed. It is seen that the
issue had been considered by the first respondent and hence
there is no point in now relegating the petitioner to the same
authority. Since the review petitioner has sought one week’s time
to file reply and thereafter, consideration of the case on merits by
this court and also taking into consideration the advanced age of
the writ petitioner, the review petition is allowed. The judgment
dated 18.12.2006 in O.P.No.11995/1998 is recalled. Post the writ
petition for hearing on 24.7.2009.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
tgs
KURIAN JOSEPH, J
———————————————-
R.P. No.773/2007 in O.P.No.11995/1998
———————————————-
O R D E R
Dated 20th July, 2009.