IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1804 of 2007() --------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30778/2003 Dated 13/06/2006) .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, VTH FLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER -------------------------------- E.P.SARADA, W/O. V.S.SREEDHARAN, VATTAKKUNNEL HOUSE,MUNDANAKAL PO, KOTTAYAM, HIGHER GRADE ICDS SUPERVISOR, LAMA PROJECT,ANTHICADU PO, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU SRI.V.K.SUNIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ............................................................................... W.A.No. 1804 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th November, 2011 J U D G M E N T MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. 2. The respondent herein was selected and was appointed to the post of Integrated Child Development Scheme Supervisor (ICDS Supervisor in short) on 12.02.1990. She completed ten years' of service on 12.02.2000. Then she was entitled for time bound Higher Grade on completion of qualifying service of ten years. It is not in dispute that on 13.02.2000, she sought for time bound Higher Grade w.e.f. 13.02.2000. It was accepted. Subsequent to exercise of option on 13.02.2000. she sought for modification of her option by submitting representations to the higher authorities that time bound Higher Grade must be given W.A.No. 1804 OF 2007 2 effect from 01.04.2000 instead of 13.02.2000. This came to be rejected on the ground that as per the Government Orders prevailing from time to time and at the relevant point of time that once the Government servant has exercised her option for time Bound Higher Grade, she cannot seek for re-option. Aggrieved by the same, she approached this Court seeking quashing of Exts.P2, P5 and P8. 3. Ext.P2 is the order sanctioning the Time Bound Higher Grade w.e.f. 13.02.2000. Exts.P5 and P8 are the orders rejecting the re-option sought by the respondent herein. 4. The learned Single Judge without referring to any of the Government orders prevailing at the relevant point of time opined that as the petitioner mistakenly mentioned the date of option as 13.02.2000, the same was causing financial loss to her, therefore it would be just and proper for the authorities to allow the respondent/writ petitioner to seek re-option. Aggrieved by the same, the State is before us. 5. We have gone through the concerned Government Orders as well as the Pay Revision Government Order of 1997. W.A.No. 1804 OF 2007 3 G.O.(P) No.81/80(159)/Fin. dated 22.01.1980, says that those who are eligible for the time bound higher grade on completion of the specified qualifying service shall be given right of option to elect any date subsequent to the date on which they complete the qualifying service fixed for that higher grade. G.O.(P) No.367/96(87)/Fin dated 19.04.1996 says that the option shall be exercised within three months from the date of issue of order granting grade promotions. Subsequent Government Order, i.e., G.O.(Ms)608/83/(530)/Fin dated 27.09.1983 and Circular No.55/90/(47)/Fin. dated 20.07.1990 indicates, the option once exercised for time bound higher grade promotion it shall be final; no re-option will be granted for grade promotions and that if no option is exercised by the incumbent within the period prescribed for exercising option, it will be presumed that such persons have opted the time bound higher grade promotion from the due date of time bound higher grade itself and Appointing Authorities/Heads of Departments have to issue orders accordingly. 6. In the present case, no doubt, she reached the W.A.No. 1804 OF 2007 4 entitlement of higher grade on completion of ten years' on 12.02.2000. She was entitled for higher grade from 13.02.2000. She had three months' time from there to seek such higher grade option, i.e. from the date on which the scheme was applicable to her . If she failed to do so, the presumption is that she would be entitled for such higher grade only from the date on which she was entitled for such time bound Higher Grade. 7. In that view of the matter, once having exercised her option, seeking such benefit w.e.f. 13.02.2000, she was not entitled to exercise re-option and we are of the opinion that the authorities concerned were justified in rejecting the same in terms of the Government Orders referred to above. 8. The learned Single Judge without referring to the above mentioned Government Orders had proceeded to allow the writ petition mainly having regard to the fact that she would be put to financial loss. We also note that subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition, her representation came to be cancelled and so far as this rejection is concerned, the respondent has not made any challenge . In that view of the matter, the later rejection has W.A.No. 1804 OF 2007 5 also reached finality. Even otherwise, the earlier rejections by the concerned authorities were in terms of Government Orders of several dates . In view of the above discussions and reasonings, the appeal deserves to be allowed, setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge, dated 13.06.2006 in W.P.(C) No.30778 of 2003. Accordingly the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk