IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 21022 of 2005(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJAN NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAN NAIR, MANGALATHU HOUSE, THEKKUMKARA, KONATHUKUNNU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, RETIRED MASAPADI, POTHANI DEVASWOM, PADIYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.RENJITH THAMPAN, SMT.P.A.ANITHA. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, THRISSUR. BY MR.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21022/2005-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O.(P)399/80/(206) FIN. DT. 21/06/1980 FROM THE FINANCE (PRC) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER DT. 22/07/1983 ON M. 1547/83 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER DT. 15/02/94 ON M1.39/94 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER DT. 22/04/1996 ON M1.1766/95 FROM THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 22/07/96 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 342/97 OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DTD. 03/05/1997. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD.08/06/03. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M.8905/03 DTD. 28/05/2004 OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE PAGES 8-9 OF SERVICE BOOK. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE OPTION STATEMENT DT. 31/01/1994. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE OPTION STATEMENT DT. 25/04/1996. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 18/01/1997 FROM DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND(CD) AUDIT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.21022 OF 2005 (C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he joined the service of the respondent as Kalavara in the Elamkunnapuzha Temple in 1954. According to the petitioner, when the post of Kalavara was converted to Masapadi, he was posted as Masappadi in Ayyampilly Temple and that he continued in that capacity till his retirement on 28.2.1995. By Ext.P1 higher grade was ordered to be granted to stagnating employees. It is the petitioner's case that though the benefit of Ext.P1 was ordered to be extended to him, the benefits were not actually granted. He represented the matter and finally by Ext.P8 his claim was rejected. In these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. Ext.P8 shows that the petitioner has two grievances. One is that, his service as Kalavara till he became Masappadi should be reckoned and on that basis higher grade should be extended to him from 1979 onwards. The other prayer is that the option exercised by him for claiming parity with effect from 1.3.1992 should be acted upon. Both these prayers were rejected. In so far as WPC .No.21022/05 :2 : his claim for higher grade 1979 is concerned, in Ext.P8 it is stated that higher grade is applicable to only those who have completed 13 years in the entry cadre and that as the petitioner was granted promotion as Masappady on 10.2.1976, he did not satisfy the conditions prescribed for higher grade. In so far as the option exercised by the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the option was exercised only on 25.4.1996, which was after his retirement and therefore cannot be acted upon., 3. Impugning the findings rejected the petitioner's claim for higher grade, counsel for the petitioner submits that, he was not granted any promotion on 10.2.1976 and that it was only a case of conversion of Kalavara to Masappadi. However, counsel for the respondent Board invited my attention to Ext.R1(a), the relevant page of the service book of the petitioner, which carries endorsement that the petitioner was promoted as Masappadi in 1976. While the Board has produced Ext.R1(a) service book, no materials has been produced by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that it was only a conversion of post and not a memo. In the light of Ext.R1(a) produced by the Board I cannot accept the WPC .No.21022/05 :3 : unsubstantiated claim raised by the petitioner. 4. What remains is the request of the petitioner for accepting the option exercised by him. Evidently option was exercised by the petitioner long after his retirement and the stand of the respondent in Ext.P8 is that there is no rule enabling acceptance of such belated option. No rule or other provision has been pointed out to contradict this finding in Ext.P8 and in such circumstances that finding in Ext.P8 also has to be upheld and I do so. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/