Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Electricity Board ... vs Ajithkumar.S.R on 12 April, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
RP NO. 282 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.17467 OF
2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
DIRECTOR, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695004
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDYUTHI
BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695004
3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. VYDYUTHI
BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695004
BY ADVS.
C.JOSEPH ANTONY
JOSEPH JOSE
RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)
RESPONDENT/S:
AJITHKUMAR.S.R,
AGED 49 YEARS
S, S/O K.SASIDHARAN NAIR, KAUSTHUBHAM, TC
11/1535/1, CLIFF HOUSE ROAD, KOWDIAR POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695003
BY ADV SANDESH RAJA K
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.04.2024, THE COURT ON 12.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.282 of 2024
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024 By the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court, after finding that the petitioner ought to have rejoined duty on expiry of his leave, allowed the writ petition by accepting the contention that the writ petitioner was not served with any written intimation, requiring him to rejoin service. Along with the review petition, Annexure A1 letter is produced to establish that the writ petitioner had been served with Ext.R2(a) letter, directing him to report for duty with immediate effect.
2. Heard Senior Advocate Raju Joseph for the review petitioner and Adv.K.Sandesh Raja for the respondent/ writ petitioner.
3. A close scrutiny of the impugned judgment, especially paragraph 5 therein, shows that the writ petition was allowed finding R.P.No.282 of 2024 -3- substance in the contention that no written intimation, requiring him to rejoin duty, was sent to the petitioner. Even though Ext.R2(b) dated 16.09.2010 was produced, this Court took the view that, the said document is an inter- office communication and it would only show that the decision of the Board to reject the writ petitioner's request for extension of leave without allowance was informed to him when he came to the office to enquire about his application for leave. The said position has changed with the production of Annexure A1 letter dated 08.10.2010 issued by the writ petitioner with specific reference to Ext.R2(a) letter.
4. Learned Senior Counsel contended that Annexure A1 letter was deliberately suppressed by the writ petitioner. Per contra, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner argued that reference was made to Ext.R2(a) in Annexure A1, since the number of that letter was furnished to the R.P.No.282 of 2024 -4- petitioner from his office. It is hence contended that the production of Annexure A1 can have no impact on the findings rendered by this Court.
I am not called upon to decide the authenticity or otherwise of Ext.R2(a) in this review petition. At the same time, with the production of Annexure A1, a re-look at the finding in the impugned judgment, that the petitioner was never intimated regarding the rejection of his application for leave without allowance, has become imperative.
For the aforementioned reasons, the review petition is allowed and the impugned judgment, recalled.
Post as per roster on 04.06.2024.
sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/ R.P.No.282 of 2024 -5- APPENDIX OF RP 282/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE.