JYOTHIKUMAR NAIR Vs. SASIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE additional 7th respondent in WP (C). No. 25025 of 2010 has filed this review petition. According to the petitioner herein, he is aggrieved by the directions (d) and (e) in the judgment sought to be reviewed. As per the said directions, it has been ordered that the arrears payable to the first respondent herein shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum which the second respondent may recover from the person responsible for causing the delay in payment of the amounts to the petitioner. As per relief (e), the first respondent has been held entitled to recover the costs of the litigation from the review petitioner which is quantified and fixed as Rs.15,000/ -. The first respondent had filed the writ petition complaining that the salary due to him was not being paid. Though as per Ext.P3 order in the writ petition, his pay had been stepped up with effect from 1.5.1992, he was being paid a salary substantially less than what was actually due to him. The post occupied by the first respondent being that of a self drawing officer, a pay slip had to be issued to him by the review petitioner. Though he was requested to issue a pay slip, no pay slip was issued by the petitioner herein by raising objections one after another. Thereafter, though he had issued a pay slip pursuant to an interim order of this Court, the same was for an amount substantially less than what the petitioner was drawing even when he was working in a lower post. The allegation of the first respondent was that the said act was deliberate. Though the petitioner herein had been impleaded in his personal capacity as the additional 7th respondent in the writ petition, he did not appear or contest the case despite receiving notice from this Court.

(2.) THE writ petition was finally heard and after considering the issues involved, the writ petition was allowed by the judgment sought to be reviewed. It was taking note of the conduct of the petitioner herein that directions (d) and (e) were issued.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner Sri. Anil P.V., Adv. K. Subash Chandra Bose, who appears for the first respondent and also Adv. Joseph John, appears for the second respondent. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties anxiously. The records of the case show that the additional 7th respondent had been served with notice. Therefore, it is not correct to state that he was not given sufficient opportunity to contest the writ petition. No documents or other materials are placed before me to justify a conclusion that the first respondent had misled this Court or had suppressed material facts. The costs as well as the interest awarded are for reasons that are set out in the judgment that is sought to be reviewed. I am not satisfied that the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or that there are other sufficient reasons justifying a review thereof. I do not find any grounds to entertain this review petition.