IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2007 / 7TH ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 28494 of 2006(P) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. P.R. PRASANNAKUMARI, W/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR AGED 53 YEARS, HEADMISTRESS, DBHSS THAKAZHI ON TRANSFER TO DBHS THIRUVALLA, RESIDING AT KARIYAMATTOM, AUMURA P.O., CHANGANASSERY. 2. R.S. REMA DEVI, W/O. SASIDARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, HEAD MISTRESS, NSS HSS, RAMANKARI, RESIDING AT SREEDHARI VILASAM RAMANKARI. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SMT.G.R.LEKSHMI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDANCODE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEO KUTTANAD, RAMANKARI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE DEO THIRUVALLA, PIN-689101. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28494 of 2006(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: A true copy of the order No.F/5663/05 dated 12.9.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioners. Ext.P2: True copy of the letter dated 6.6.05 along with the relevant pages of the audit objection forwarded by the DEO to the petitioners. Ext.P3: A true copy of the judgment in OP No.20280/01 dated 11.3.2002 of the honourable court. Ext.P4: A true copy of the representation dated 24.3.2006 submitted before the 3rd respondent by the 2nd petitioner. // True copy // P.A. To Judge jes K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 28494 OF 2006 P -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th June, 2008 JUDGMENT It is submitted by both sides that the issue is covered by the judgment in O.P.No.8951 of 2002, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in State of Kerala v. Lissy Joseph (2005 (4) KLT SN 70 case No.97). The Division Bench considered the question whether arrears consequent on re-option of higher grades are admissible from the effective date of re-option or from the date of re-option. It was held that what is intended is the date of effect of re-option and not the date of actual exercise of re-option. In view of the judgments referred to above, Ext.P2 audit objection that the arrears consequent on re-option would be paid only from the date of filing of re-option is unsustainable. As per Ext.P1, the petitioner was directed to refund the excess amount drawn. 2. In view of the fact that the dispute has been finally settled by the Division Bench, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed for in the Writ Petition. Exts.P1 and P2 are, therefore, quashed. Petitioner will be entitled to the arrears consequent on re-option with reference to the effective date of re-option. W.P.(C) NO.28494 OF 2006 :: 2 :: 3. Learned Government Pleader submitted that as against the decision of the Division Bench in State of Kerala v. Lissy Joseph (2005 (4) KLT SN 70 case No.97), the State has filed appeal before the Supreme Court as S.L.P.No.2662 of 2006 and connected cases and that the decision in this case may be directed to be subject to the final outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court. Since I have disposed of this Writ Petition on the basis of the decisions referred to above, it goes without saying that it would be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court which arises out of the decision of the Division Bench. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/