A review petition requires demonstration of an error apparent on record to be maintainable; mere reiteration of prior contentions is insufficient.

Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2026 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 17.10.2025 in W.A.No.2107 of 2018. The Writ Appeal was filed by the Review Petitioner challenging the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.33935 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated

28.06.2018.

2. Review Petitioner, a retired District Judge, had preferred the W.P.(C) contending that he had been denied salary towards leave surrender. Upon retirement as District Judge, he had been re-employed as a Member of the Advisory Board under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act , 2007 and in the said capacity, his service conditions were governed by the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Advisory Board (Chairman, Members and Staff Members Service Conditions) Rules, 2011. Since Rule 6(2) thereof provides that a Member is entitled to pay and allowances equivalent to those drawn at retirement and that Rule 100 , Part III KSR stipulates that a re-employed pensioner is entitled to the pay and allowances of the post less the monthly pension drawn, the pension received forms part of salary and must be reckoned for calculating leave surrender salary, he contended that he is entitled to get the pension amount he was receiving, also treated as part of the salary, and the same is to be taken into account while calculating the earned leave surrender salary.

3. The learned Single Judge turned down the said contention and inter alia held that the claim of the Review Petitioner in the W.P. (C) that the pension shall not be deducted from the salary since he is not getting pension for the leave surrendered is unsustainable. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the W.P.(C), the above Writ Appeal was filed which too was dismissed by the judgment sought to be reviewed in this Review Petition.

4. Heard Sri.Enoch David Simon Joel, Advocate for the Review Petitioner, Sri.K.P.Harish, Senior Government Pleader for the respondent and Sri.T.K.Sreekala, Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

5. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. The principal contention vehemently canvassed by the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner is regarding discrimination of the Review Petitioner as against the other member appointed along with him overlooking of which is an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review. It is contended that while the other person was given a higher amount as a surrender leave salary, the petitioner had been denied the same. Though at the first blush, the said contention regarding discrimination appears pertinent and in the judgment sought to be reviewed, we had given due consideration for the same and had explained that the said contention cannot be sustained for the reason that the said individual as regard whom the Review Petitioner alleges to have been discriminated against stands on a different footing for the reason that he was not a re-employed pensioner. Though the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner, with admirable persistence tried to impress upon us that it was not so as and that though his client and the said individual were similarly situated, the latter had been sanctioned full salary of Rs.58,930/- as leave salary being the last drawn salary of the Review Petitioner, while the Review Petitioner himself had only been sanctioned a lesser amount of Rs.30,080/- as earned leave after deducting the pension component, we are not persuaded to accept the said argument in the facts and situation at hand. While the Review Petitioner is a retired Judicial Officer who derives regular pension, the other individual was an Advocate from the bar who had no pension and the emoluments due to