IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 21196 of 2002(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A.K.SATHI, D/O.M.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, RETIRED HEADMISTRESS, KANDAKKAI.P.O., KANNUR- 670 302. BY ADVS.MR.N.D.JOY, MR.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN, MR.K.SABU, MR.T.NIKLAVU, MR.K.SABU. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA SOUTH, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU.T.K. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss O.P.NO.21196/2002 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.6193/99/FIN. DTD. 14/10/99. P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 05/02/1996. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.26434/01. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/03/2002. P5: COPY OF THE G.O.275/1990/(20)/FIN. OF THE GOVT. DTD.18/04/1990. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P. No.21196 OF 2002 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 27th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The challenge is against Ext.P2 audit report, by a retired Headmistress of ALP School, Kandakkani. According to the petitioner, she made re-option on 23.10.89 to postpone the higher grade to 1.11.88 from 1.7.87. The said re-option was made on the strength of G.O (P) No.459/89/Fin. dt.23.10.89. Against the said re-option, the second respondent raised objection. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Government who in turn issued Ext.P1 order by which sanction was accorded to the petitioner to exercise re-option instead of senior grade with effect from 1.11.88 subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. But the 2nd respondent again sticked on the objection which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has got altogether 36 years of service on her retirement on 31.5.2002. Senior grade was granted to the petitioner on her 20 years of service with effect from 24.11.86. It is admitted that the petitioner made option on 24.9.87 with effect from 1.7.87. But G.O.(P) No.459/89/Fin/dt.23.10.89 had granted OP No.21196/2002 -:2:- right to the petitioner like persons to make re-option, and in exercise of such right granted to the petitioner, she had made re option on 23-10-89. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has no authority to raise objection. However, it is pointed out that against Ext.P2 audit report, the petitioner approached the Ist respondent who issued Ext.P1 order in favour of the petitioner. As I indicated earlier, sanction was accorded to the petitioner to exercise re-option but subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. If that be so, the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner bearing some force and the auditor cannot overrule the sanction accorded by the first respondent. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. 4. It is to be noted that this court by Ext.P3 order in an identical situation, directed the respondents concerned to implement Ext.P1 like order. As the Government as per Ext.P1 order accorded sanction in favour of the petitioner, objection raised by the 2nd respondent cannot be approved and such objection is liable to be overruled and I do so accordingly. In the result, Ext.P2 is quashed to the extent it is against the OP No.21196/2002 -:3:- petitioner. There will be a direction to the respondents to restore the benefits given to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 and refund the amount due to the petitioner, which she is otherwise entitled irrespective of Ext.P2 objection. The respondents are directed to expedite the proceedings to disburse the amount due to the petitioner in the light of relief granted by this Court and the same shall be done at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment which will be produced by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- OP No.21196/2002 -:4:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..