IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 40317 of 2003(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. K.P. ACHUTHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, SANSKRIT TEACHER, KOLAVALLUR U.P. SCHOOL, THUVAKKUNNU, PANOOR- 670 693. 2. K.SREEDHARAN, HEADMASTER, KOLAVALLUR U.P.SCHOOL, THUVAKKUNNU, PANOOR-670 693. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PANOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T. MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.40317/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.399/(17B)/99/FIN.OF THE GOVERNMENT. P2 COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.1503/(180)/99/FIN.OF THE GOVERNMENT. P3 COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE FIXATION OF PAY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P4 COPY OF THE -DO- OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.5036/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P6 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.K.DIS. E-1294/03 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P7 COPY OF THE -DO- OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. P8 COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.206/2003/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.40317 of 2003-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011. JUDGMENT The first petitioner is working as a Sanskrit Teacher in Kolavallur U.P. School in Panoor Educational Sub District and the second petitioner is the Headmaster of the same school . Both of them submitted reoption pursuant to 1992 pay revision which were accepted and pay was refixed as per Exts.P3 and P4. The grievance raised is regarding the audit objection raised with regard to the date from which the benefit of reoption is allowable. It is contended that the petitioners exercised the reoption in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 orders and that they have submitted the same within the time allowed, i.e. between 5.2.1999 and 4.5.1999. The challenge is against Exts.P6 and P7 orders, and para 5(i) of Ext.P8 to the extent it limits the arrears consequent on reoption only from the date of filing of re-option and not from the date of effect of re-option. 3. In the light of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Lissy Joseph (2005 (4) KLT SN page 70 - case No.97 = 2006 (1) KLJ 566), the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner. The Division Bench therein held that the benefit of reoption is allowable from 2 the date opted by the officer concerned and not from the date of acceptance of the option. The legal position is laid down thus: “The only dispute to be resolved in these appeals is whether arrears consequent on reoption of higher grades are admissible from the date of effect of re-option or from the date of filing of re-option. It is now clear that what is intended is the date of effect of re-option and not the date of actual exercise of re-option. Excess of amount due after calculating the same from the date of effect of re-option can be entitled to set off against the refunds due from the employee and the amount due, if any, arising after the date of re-option alone need be refunded to the Government.” 4. In the light of the above, the audit objection raised against the petitioners cannot be sustained. The petitioners are also entitled for the benefit of reoption from the date of option and not from the date of filing of option. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders Exts.P6 and P7 and para 5(i) of Ext.P8 are quashed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/