RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021

``` RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 ``` ``` 1 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V THURSDAY, THE 24[TH]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:`** ``` 1DR. ANUP S., AGED 49 YEARS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547. 2DR. DEEPU M., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547. 3DR. ANILKUMAR, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547. BY ADV VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (FINANCE), FINANCE (PENSION B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. ``` ``` RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 2THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PADMAVILASOM STREET, FORT P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023. 3THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547. 4THE SECRETARY, ISRO HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE , ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 094. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC ``` ``` SMT SURYA BINOY, SR GP ``` ``` THISREVIEWPETITIONHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 24.03.2022,ALONGWITHRP.63/2021,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY 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 THURSDAY, THE 24[TH]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:`** ``` 1DR.SHINE S. R., AGED 47 YEARS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547. 2DR. 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:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (FINANCE), FINANCE (PENSION B) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PADMAVILASOM STREET, FORT P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023. ``` ``` RPs.59 & 63 OF 20214 ``` ``` 3THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547. 4THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, VALIAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 547. 5THE SECRETARY, ISRO HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF SPACE, ANTARIKSH BHAVAN, BANGALORE - 560 094. BY ADV SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC SMT SURYA BINOY, SR GP ``` ``` THISREVIEWPETITIONHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 24.03.2022,ALONGWITHRP.59/2021,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY 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 ``` RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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. ``` RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` 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 ``` RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` 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 ``` RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 ``` ``` 9 ``` 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 ``` RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 ``` ``` 10 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF RP 59/2021`** ``` PETITIONER (S) ANNEXURES : ``` ``` ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.614837/PEN-B2/155/2020-FIN. DATED 20.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF G.P.(P) NO.188/2008/FIN. DATED 25.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE CTRUE 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. ``` ``` RPs.59 & 63 OF 2021 ``` ``` 11 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF RP 63/2021`** ``` PETITIONER (S) ANNEXURES : ``` ``` ANNEXURE ATRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.614837/PEN-B2/155/2020-FIN. DATED 20.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF G.P.(P) NO.188/2008/FIN. DATED 25.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` ANNEXURE CTRUE 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. ```