Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This application seeking review of judgment comes up with an application seeking condonation of delay in its institution.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner quite in extenso, even on the merits of the review petition as well.
3. The review petition is addressed against a judgment, whereby the original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging a decision of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal was allowed. We see that the only challenge in the original petition was as regards the recovery of amounts which were allegedly paid as excess towards pensionary benefits. No other reliefs were sought for in the original petition and no other grounds were raised. Under such circumstances, the R.P.No.962/14 2 petitioner was granted the relief, vacating the direction of the Tribunal, regarding the recovery of overdrawn pensionary benefits. The direction in the judgment sought to be reviewed is that such amount shall not be recovered. The application seeking review is on a totally different ground, which is over and above the plea raised in the original petition. No ground for review of such nature can be entertained.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, this application for review of judgment and the application seeking condonation of delay fail.
In the result, civil miscellaneous application and review petition are dismissed.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG