IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 W.P(C).No. 27847 of 2008(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.A.BABY, 57 YEARS, PALATTY HOUSE, MELOOR PO., CHALAKUDY (RETD. UPSA, SHC GHSS, CHALAKKUDY) BY ADV. SRI.MVS. NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DORECTOR OF EDUCATION THRISSUR 4. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IORINJALAKUDA. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 27847 OF 2008 M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of November 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P9, P11 and P12. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a U.P.S.A. on 5.5.1970 and on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.7.2006. The claim in this writ petition is regarding the sustainability of Ext. P7 re-option exercised by the petitioner based on G.O.(P) No. 952/95(63)/Fin. dated 5.12.1995. 3. According to the petitioner, that was objected by Ext. P9 on the ground that it was inapplicable to teachers. Petitioner represented the matter to the 2nd respondent by filing Ext. P10 and that resulted in Ext. P11. It is in this background the writ petition is filed. 4. True, as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, in Ext. P14 judgment and also in the judgment in W.P.(C) No. W.P.(C) No.27847 OF 2008 - 2 - 28260/05, this Court has taken the view that teachers are also entitled to the benefit of G.O.(P) No. 952/95(63) referred to above. However, irrespective of that, the statement filed by the 3rd respondent, shows that the petitioner had already opted for the benefit of G.O.(P) 380/94/Fin. dated 9.6.1994 and that on that basis benefit has been extended to the petitioner. If that be so, further option based on G.O.(P) No. 952/95(63)/Fin. dated 5.12.1995 does not arise. The fact that the petitioner has opted for the benefit of G.O.(P) No. 380/94/Fin. dated 9.6.1994 is not disclosed in the writ petition and the averment to that effect in the statement filed by the 3rd respondent is not contradicted by any reply affidavit in that behalf. If that be so, I cannot accept the contention that the petitioner is entitled to yet another option made by Ext. P9. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-