IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8545 of 2007(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.A.MARIAM BEEVI,PARAYIL HOUSE, KALLAR P.O.,PATTOM COLONY,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEDUMKANDOM,IDUKKI DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 8545 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from service as an Arabic teacher from an aided school. Her grievance in this writ petition is regarding revision of scales of pay in accordance with 1988 and 1992 pay revision orders. The petitioner's pay was not revised in accordance with the pay revision orders in view of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against her. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had submitted option for coming over to the revised scales of pay. But, in the meanwhile, the service book of the petitioner went missing. It was later reconstructed pursuant to the orders of this Court in O.P.No. 27261/1999. Thereafter, by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner's pay in the revised scales of pay was fixed for 1988 and 1992 pay revisions. For the purpose of fixation of pay, the option date was taken as the dates of coming into force of the pay revision orders themselves. The petitioner submitted that that fixation is not correct since the petitioner had submitted option. Having failed to evoke any favourable response from the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No.35650/2001, in which, by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court held as follows: 'This writ petition is filed with the following prayers: w.p.c.8545/07 2 “i) to call for the records lading to Ext.P4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioner by accepting the fresh option submitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P3.” There is no counter affidavit. Petitioner submits that he had already exercised his option in respect of 1988 and 1992 pay revisions. The request was rejected on the ground that re-option cannot be permitted in view of 1997 pay revision order. I am afraid the (sic) Government has not applied its mind to the actual grievance of the petitioner. For one thing it has to be seen that the petitioner cannot be blamed at all since at the relevant time the service book was missing. That apart the petitioner has no grievance regarding 1997 pay revision. According to the petitioner, she had already exercised her option. Admittedly, the service book was reconstructed only in the year 2000. Therefore it is only in the interest of justice that an opportunity is given to the petitioner. I quash Ext.P3. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to reopt. The required orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.' The petitioner submitted re-option in accordance with that judgment. But, by Ext.P6 order, while refixing the pay of the petitioner as per the revised option, it was held that monetary benefits on account of re- option will be limited to pensionary benefits only, since the petitioner had already retired from service on 30.6.2000. According to the petitioner, denial of monetary benefits to the petitioner is unjust and illegal. The petitioner submits that if the petitioner's pay were fixed originally on the basis of the dates, on which, she had submitted option, the petitioner would have got monetary benefits as well, which has been denied to the petitioner for no fault of hers, because original option date could not be ascertained only because the service book of w.p.c.8545/07 3 the petitioner was missing. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to monetary benefits as well although the refixation is on the basis of a representation. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein the stand taken is that as per the orders granting fresh chance to re-opt, it is specifically stated that the monetary benefits of re- option would be allowable only with effect from the date of re-option. In this case, since the petitioner had already retired from service, by the time she submitted reoption, monetary benefits were confined to pensionary benefits, is the contention raised. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. At this point of time, it is impossible to ascertain what was the original dates of option submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the petitioner had given the dates given in the reoption at the time of original option itself. Evidently, the petitioner's pay was fixed in the revised scales of pay taking particular dates as the date of option. It cannot, with any amount of certainty, be ascertained now as to whether that was the date opted by the petitioner originally or not. In Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner has been given only an opportunity to re-opt. If the intention of this Court was to direct the respondents to recompute the petitioner's pay as per the dates of option alleged to have been w.p.c.8545/07 4 submitted by the petitioner originally, Ext.P5 judgment would have stated so. In fact, by Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner has been given only an opportunity for reoption. The Government themselves had given a fresh opportunity to Government servants to file re-option with specific condition that in such cases, monetary benefits accruing on the basis of refixation in accordance with the re-option would be given only from the date of re-option. In view of the said circumstances, I am satisfied that despite the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner can be given benefits only on the basis of the Government orders granting re-option, which has been given to others also. The only consequence of Ext.P5 judgment is that the petitioner has been given an opportunity for re-option notwithstanding the fact that the date fixed in the Government order granting re-option is long over. In the above circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner can be given monetary benefits also as if the re-option submitted by the petitioner is the original date of option. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.8545/07 5 W.P.(C).No. 8545/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.2.3.2010. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.8.5.2010. P3. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.4.12.2000. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.3.10.2001. P5. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C).No. 35650/2001. P6. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.14.7.2006. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge