IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 12617 of 2003(B) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- G.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, P.D TEACHER, GOVT.H.S., THATTATHUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR.N.ANILKUMAR, ADDL.CGSC FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MANOJ THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.21536/2003 IN OP. NO.12617/2003 DISMISSED 27/02/2009 SD/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE GO(P) 380/94(13)/FIN. DT. 9.6.94. P2:- COPY OF THE OPTION AND STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. P3:- COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE GO(P) 952/95/(63)/FIN. DT. 5.12.95. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ O.P. No. 12617 OF 2003 ......................................................................... Dated this the 27th February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner started his career as a P.D. Teacher on 31.12.1975 who had also some broken service to his credit under different spells from 13.12.1972 to 30.12.1975. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to get the benefit of ten years' higher grade as due on 15.11.1982 (counting the broken period of service) and it was sanctioned with effect from 01.12.1985 (as per the option) and the second higher grade (senior grade) on completion of 20 years' service is stated as sanctioned to him with effect from 16.12.1992. It is stated that at the time of 1992 Pay Revision, the time bound higher grade was not sanctioned to the government employees and later, on sanctioning of the same, it was extended to the teachers as per the Government Order, G.O.(P)No.380/94(13)/Fin dated 09.06.1994. On the basis of the said Government Order, the petitioner submitted re-option on 17.06.1994 for getting the second higher grade on completion of 20 years' service with O.P. No. 12617 OF 2003 2 effect from 16.12.1992 in the pre-revised scale of 1992 pay revision (Rs.1220-2150) while opting for the revised scale of pay of Rs.1520-2660 only with effect from 01.12.1993. It is stated that the said re-option was accepted and the benefits were sanctioned as borne by Ext.P2. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on modification of Ext. P1 Government Order by Ext. P4 Government Order G.O.(P) 952/95/(63)/Fin dated 05.12.1995, the second respondent allegedly acting on the basis of Ext.P4 Government Order raised an audit objection vide Ext. P3, observing that the pay fixation effected in the case of the petitioner as per Ext. P2 was not at all correct and thus directions were issued to have it re-fixed in the manner specified therein. Ext. P3, audit objection and Ext.P4 Government Order are in turn subjected to challenge in this Original Petition, stating that Ext.P4 Government Order which was issued only subsequently on 15.12.19995 , i.e., much after exercising the re-option on 17.06.1994,( as borne by Ext.P2) are not correct or sustainable particularly since Ext.P4 Government Order was not intended for the teachers who exercised option like the petitioner and further that the objection raised in Ext P3 can O.P. No. 12617 OF 2003 3 only be applicable to the Government employees other than teachers who submitted any new option pursuant to Ext. P4 Government Order. The petitioner having not submitted any option pursuant to Ext. P4 Government Order ought not to have been hit with any adverse circumstances pursuant to Ext. P4 Government Order, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Government Pleader, referring to the specific averments in the counter affidavit submits that Ext. P4 Government Order has nothing to do with the case of the petitioner and that the idea and understanding of the petitioner in molding his case is only wrong and misconceived in so far as Ext.P3 audit objection has been made not on the basis of Ext. P4 Government Order, but on the basis of the relevant rules for fixation under the 1992 Pay Revision Order and also on the basis of G.O.(P) 930/93/(2)/Fin dated 08.12.1993 . 4. It is true that as per G.O.(P) No. 600/93/Fin dated 25.09.1993, the Government had revised the scales of pay of Government employees with effect from 01.03.1992. Later, vide G.O.(P)No.380/94/(13)/Fin dated 09.06.1994, the teachers were O.P. No. 12617 OF 2003 4 allowed to opt the time bound higher grade fell due/ granted first on or after 01.03.1992, cancelling the option already exercised in respect of the post held by them prior to 01.03.1992. This facility was later extended to other government employees also as per Ext. P4 Government Order. It is brought to light that the rules for fixation of pay in 1992 Pay Revision Order, (as amended vide G.O.(P)NO. 930/93/(2)/ Fin dated 08.12.1993), stipulate under para graph 7(i) that the employees were permitted to opt the revised scale of the promotion post with effect from the date of promotion itself. In the case of the petitioner, it is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that as per the option sought for, the petitioner was granted the higher grade with effect from 16.12.1992, whereas the benefit of pay revision was opted only with effect from a much later date, i.e., with effect from 01.12.1993, which obviously is not permissible by virtue of specific stipulation in paragraph 7(i) of the Government Order dated 08.12.1993. On the basis of the specific provisions governing the realm of pay fixation with regard to 1992 Pay Revision that the fixation effected in the case of the petitioner O.P. No. 12617 OF 2003 5 on the basis of Ext.P2 proceedings was pointed out as wrong and unsustainable vide Ext.P3 audit objection and it was never on the basis of Ext. P4 Government Order- as contended by the petitioner, asserts the learned Government Pleader. The case put forward by the Government appears to be very much correct and sustainable. This is more so when no reference is made in Ext.P3 audit objection as the same has been resulted because of any direct consequence flowing from Ext,. P4 Government Order. No such adverse circumstance is pointed out or established by the petitioner as well. In the above facts and circumstances, no interference is called for and the Original Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk O.P. No. 12617 OF 2003 6 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,J. ................................................... O.P. No. 12617 OF 2003. ................................................... Dated this the 27th February, 2009 J U D G M E N T