Kerala High Court
Dr.Shine S. R vs State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2022
RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TH
THURSDAY, THE 24 DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1944
RP NO. 59 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2020 IN WP(C) 41711/2017 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 DR. ANUP S.,
AGED 49 YEARS,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
547.
2 DR. DEEPU M.,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
547.
3 DR. ANILKUMAR,
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, INDIAN
INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547.
BY ADV VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
(FINANCE), FINANCE (PENSION B) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
001.
RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 2
2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PADMAVILASOM STREET, FORT P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
3 THE DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547.
4 THE SECRETARY,
ISRO HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE , ANTARIKSH
BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 094.
BY ADV SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
SMT SURYA BINOY, SR GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.63/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TH
THURSDAY, THE 24 DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1944
RP NO. 63 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2020 IN WP(C) 38902/2017 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 DR.SHINE S. R.,
AGED 47 YEARS,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
547.
2 DR. BIJU DAS C. R.,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
547.
BY ADV VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHYIL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
(FINANCE), FINANCE (PENSION B) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PADMAVILASOM STREET, FORT P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 4
3 THE DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547.
4 THE CHAIRMAN,
BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547.
5 THE SECRETARY,
ISRO HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, ANTARIKSH
BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 094.
BY ADV SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
SMT SURYA BINOY, SR GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.59/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 5
ORDER
R.P.No. 63/2021 and R.P.No. 59/2021 are filed seeking to review the
common judgment dated 23.07.2020 in W.P.(C) No.38902 of 2017 and
W.P.(C) No. 41711 of 2017.
2. As common contentions are raised, both these review petitions
are considered and disposed of by a common order.
3. I have heard Sri.Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader and have
considered the submissions advanced.
4. The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners being aggrieved
by the rejection of their request for pro rata pension by the Government
towards the service rendered by them in Government/Aided colleges prior to
their joining the Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, a deemed
University established under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956 and an
autonomous body under the Department of Space, Government of India.
5. In the course of hearing, it was submitted before this Court that
the petitioners were willing to make the payment towards the pro rata liability
of the State Government in the event of the State Government refusing the
payment and this Court, after considering the entire facts and circumstances,
disposed of the matter by holding as follows in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 of
the judgment.
"14. At any rate, as the petitioners have expressed their willingness
to bear the pension liability by themselves, Government shall
reconsider their case and pass appropriate orders for remitting the
pro-rata liability in respect of the service rendered by them under the
Government/aided Engineering/Arts & Science College, so as to
enable them to enjoy the benefit of service rendered by them under
the State Government towards their qualifying service, either
accepting the payment from them and remitting the same with ISST
or by issuing orders permitting the petitioners to remit the same with
the IIST.
15. Therefore, Ext.P15 order shall stand set aside. Government shall
reconsider the request of the petitioners and to issue orders
remitting the pro-rata liability in respect of the petitioners after
accepting the payment from the petitioners after informing them the
amount to be remitted within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
6. Sri.Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had offered and expressed
their willingness based on the calculation given by their present employer as
regards the actual pay drawn by them at the time of joining the IIST.
However, pursuant to the judgment, the Government has issued directions to
fix pro rata pension liability and has passed Annexure-A communication. In
Annexure-A, reference is made to Annexure-B and a perusal of the same
would reveal that the liability of the petitioners if they were to effect
payments in pursuance to the judgment would be huge. According to the
learned counsel, it is only just and proper that the petitioners would be
permitted to withdraw their willingness to bear the pension liability by
themselves.
7. In response, it is submitted by Smt.Surya Benoy, the learned
Senior Government Pleader, that this Court was persuaded to permit the
petitioners to remit the pro rata pension liabilities, as the former employer
had no liability or obligation to bear the same. It is further submitted that
the Government has acted upon the judgment that is sought to be reviewed.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone
through the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge.
9. I find that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ
petitions, was persuaded by the willingness expressed by the petitioners to
bear the pension liability and it was in the said circumstances that Ext.P15
order was set aside and directions were issued to the Government to
reconsider the request after accepting the payment from the petitioners. The
records produced before this Court reveals that after the rendering of the
judgment on 23.07.2020, the Government has issued Annexure-A
communication. After having obtained the reliefs, based on undertaking
given by them, the petitioners cannot be heard to turn around and contend
that the willingness given by them was not on the basis of an informed
decision.
10. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2006) 3 SCC 224], it has
been held by the Apex Court that the power of review can be exercised for
correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. As held in Ananda
Reddy N. v. Anshu Kathuriya [(2013) 15 SCC 534], the review jurisdiction
is extremely limited and unless there is a mistake apparent on the face of the
record, the judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on the
face of the record means that the mistake is self evident, needs no search
and stairs at its face. Review jurisdiction is not in appeal and disguise and
review does not permit rehearing the matter on merits.
11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
and also the learned Government Pleader, and taking note of the law laid
down above, I find no error apparent on the face of the record warranting
exercise of powers to review the judgments in W.P.(C) No.38902 of 2017 and
W.P.(C) No. 41711 of 2017.
These Review Petitions will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
DSV
APPENDIX OF RP 59/2021
PETITIONER (S) ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.614837/PEN-B2/155/2020-FIN. DATED
20.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF G.P.(P) NO.188/2008/FIN.
DATED 25.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF CALCULATIONS IN RESPECT OF
THE REVIEW PETITIONERS.
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PETITIONER'S
PAYSLIP DATED 10.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL.
EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND PETITIONER'S
PAYSLIP DATED 10.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL.
EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FORWARDED BY
THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE GOVERNMENT
IN RESPECT OF FIRST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FORWARDED BY
THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE GOVERNMENT
IN RESPECT OF SECOND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO IIST DATED
01.12.2020.
APPENDIX OF RP 63/2021
PETITIONER (S) ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.614837/PEN-B2/155/2020-FIN. DATED
20.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF G.P.(P) NO.188/2008/FIN.
DATED 25.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF CALCULATIONS IN RESPECT OF
THE PETITIONERS.
RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PETITIONER'S
PAYSLIP DATED 10.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL.
EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND PETITIONER'S
PAYSLIP DATED 10.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE
ACCOUNTANT GENERAL.
EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FORWARDED BY
THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE GOVERNMENT
IN RESPECT OF FIRST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FORWARDED BY
THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE GOVERNMENT
IN RESPECT OF SECOND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO IIST DATED
01.12.2020.
