IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 28723 of 2001(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- J.GOPI, S/O.K.JANARDHANAN, AGED 50 YEARS, SB HC (Q.NO.2958), SBCID (DETT.) KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, QUILON. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2007, THE COURT ON 09/04/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.46723/2001 IN O.P.NO.28723/2001 T DISMISSED 09/04/2008 SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE D.O.NO.112/75/Q OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 27/03/1975. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.71669/A3/97/HOME OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 02/06/2001. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------- O.P NO. 28723 OF 2001 T --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was appointed as Constable. By appointment order dated 27.3.1975, he underwent training for nine months which was completed on 31.1.1976. According to him, thereupon, he was entitled to minimum pay in the scale of pay of Rs.210 - 340. But, however, he was sent for duty to A.R. Camp, Kollam from 1.2.1976. However, he was denied salary for the period from 1.2.1976 to 31.7.1976. Denial is on the ground that for the Police Station experience of six months after the initial training of nine months, only stipend was allowable as stipulated in G.O. (MS) No.72/76 dated 10.6.1976. It is his case that the Order dated 10.6.1976 is inapplicable to him, as he had completed nine months training prior to the Government Order dated 10.6.1976. Still later, by Order dated 24.3.1979, the stipulation of practical training as per G. O. dated 10.6.1976, was dispensed with. Again, by Order dated 27.2.1990, it was OP 28723/01 T 2 ordered that the training period undergone by the recruit Constables appointed between 1976 and 1979 will be treated as duty for the purpose of leave, increment, etc. except for pay and allowances. According to him, he was paid only the training allowance, TA, etc. for the period from 1.2.1976 to 31.7.1976 and no salary was paid. According to him, if he was paid salary, he would have got increment at an early date and also grade and pensionary benefits at a higher rate. Petitioner made representations seeking salary. This Court directed consideration thereafter. Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 and seeks a mandamus to pay due salary for the period from 1.2.1976 to 31.7.1976 and other attendant benefits. A Counter Affidavit is filed. It is stated therein, inter alia, as follows: Though the orders prescribing six months practical training was issued only on 10.6.1976, the petitioner and other recruits were sent for practical training as directed from the Police Headquarters on the basis of the recommendations of the CORE Committee on Police Training. In view of the recommendations OP 28723/01 T 3 of the CORE Committee on Police Training, the Government had issued the Order prescribing additional practical training for six months. As per the existing Rules, Police Constables are eligible for stipend only during the period of training. The petitioner was paid stipend during the period of training from 27.3.1975 to 31.7.1976 and full pay and allowances were paid to him from 1.8.1976 onwards. Later, the additional practical training stipulated as per the Order dated 10.6.1976 was cancelled and the training period was restored to nine months as per Government Order dated 27.2.1990 and it was ordered that the probation of Police Constables recruited between 1976 and 4/79 and who have already undergone six months additional practical training will be declared counting the period from the very next day of successful completion of nine months training and the six months additional practical training will be treated as duty for purposes of leave, increment, etc. except pay and allowances for the period. In view of the said Order, petitioner was sanctioned second higher grade with effect from 1.2.1996 OP 28723/01 T 4 on completion of twenty years of qualifying service from 1.2.1976 counting the additional practical training from 1.2.1976 to 31.7.1976. On completion of 23 years of qualifying service, the third higher grade was sanctioned with effect from 1.2.1999. His leave Account was also revised after calculating the leave acquired for the additional training period. Regarding the claim for reoption in respect of 1978, 1983 and 1988 Pay Revisions, it is stated that it is not admissible, in view of the provisions in paragraph 15 of Annexure III to G.O.(P). No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. As far as the claim for full salary during the period from 1.2.1976 to 31.7.1976 is concerned, it is clear that the petitioner was on additional practical training in Police Stations. It is no doubt true that the Government ordered practical training to be imparted by Order dated 10.6.1976. But, as stated in the Counter Affidavit, petitioner as also others came OP 28723/01 T 5 to be sent for training, based on the recommendation of the CORE Committee of Police Training and he was paid the stipend. I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to be paid salary for the period from 1.2.1976 to 31.7.1976. Petitioner was undergoing training during that period. He has not challenged the order dated 27.2.1990. That apart, petitioner did not question his being sent for training at the appropriate time. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner then prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to exercise re-option for the 1978, 1983 and 1988 Pay Revisions. The petitioner contends that he was entitled to be paid the salary immediately after completion of his training of nine months. He is entitled to increment at an earlier date and, therefore, as the order is dated 27.2.1990, he is to be given reoption and this Court may order reoption to be exercised by the petitioner, counsel submits. Petitioner has not challenged the order dated 27.2.1990. As per the said order, petitioner has been denied pay for the period. I have found that OP 28723/01 T 6 the petitioner is not entitled to claim salary for the period from 1.2.1976 till 31.7.1976. I do not think that in the circumstances of this case, petitioner is entitled to demand right to exercise the reoption in respect of the pay revisions for 1978, 1983 and 1988. There is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is dismissed. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. K. M. JOSEPH, J. O.P NO. 28723 OF 2001 JUDGMENT April, 2008.