IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32372 of 2010(V) PETITIONER: --------------- C.K.RAJU, HSA (MALAYALAM), GOVT.GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 1 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. 3. THE DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, O/O.THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), BRANCH THRISSUR - 686 001. 4. THE HEADMISTRESS, GOVT.GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 542. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO. 32372 OF 2010 V ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as High School Assistant (Malayalam) in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Perumbavoor. Consequent on 2004 Pay Revision in the year 2006, the petitioner submitted option statements in two sets, evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2, one for 16 years' higher grade and the other for option for revised scale, opting the date with effect from 26.11.2006. It would appear that the option statements were not forwarded by the Headmistress to the Deputy Director of Education. The audit party from the Accountant General's Office, Thrissur conducted an audit inspection in June, 2008. It is stated that on 9.6.2008, the office clerk approached the petitioner and got his signature in certain forms on the premise that the original forms submitted by the petitioner were misplaced and therefore, the additional forms were required. Later, the audit party forwarded a copy of the report of inspection to the Headmistress as per the communication dated 11.7.2008. It is W.P.(C) NO.32372 OF 2010 :: 2 :: stated therein that the petitioner had opted for the revised scale of Rs.9590-16650 with effect from 1.11.2006. The case of the petitioner is that he had exercised the option with reference to the date 26.11.2006 and not 1.11.2006. In the report of inspection by the audit party, it is stated that on account of the incorrect fixation of pay, an excess amount of Rs.5,320/- was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner stated that the date 1.11.2006, instead of 26.11.2006 was put by the office clerk when getting the signature of the petitioner in the additional forms. Pointing out these facts and requesting to drop the audit objection, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 7.1.2010 and Ext.P5(a) representation dated 20.7.2010 before the Deputy Director of Education. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 20.8.2010 before the Government. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 audit objection and to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider Exts.P5 and P6 representations. Other reliefs are also prayed for in the Writ Petition. W.P.(C) NO.32372 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the Deputy Director of Education rejected Ext.P5 representation in June, 2010. Therefore, he did not consider Ext.P5(a) representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no communication was received by the petitioner from the Deputy Director of Education in respect of the rejection of Ext.P5 representation. 4. As submitted by the learned Government Pleader, it is to be taken that Ext.P5 representation was rejected by the Deputy Director of Education. At the same time, Ext.P6 representation dated 20.8.2010 submitted by the petitioner is pending before the Government. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the first respondent can be directed to dispose of Ext.P6 representation. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a W.P.(C) NO.32372 OF 2010 :: 4 :: copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till Ext.P6 representation is disposed of by the first respondent, no recovery steps shall be taken for recovering the amount shown in Ext.P3 from the petitioner. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/