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
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
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/
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
08.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION
CIRCLE.
