IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1734 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35008/2010 Dated 01/12/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- M.VIJAYALAKSHMY, AGED 45, W/O.SUDHAKARAN SREENILAYAM, THIRUVADI, P.O.THEKEPOTTA, PUDUKOD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, UPS A SARVAJANA HIGH SCHOOL, PUCHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE MANAGER, SARVAJANA HIGH SCHOOL, PUDUKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 698 001. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD 678 001. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PALAKKAD 678 001. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 685 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. GEORGE MECHERIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K. VINOD CHANDRAN,JJ ============================== W.A. NO. 1734 OF 2011 ============================ Dated this the 23rd November 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge declining to entertain the appellant's prayer for a direction to the respondents to change her option from 6/6/2005 to 1/7/2004 for the purpose of pay revision. We have heard the appellant's counsel and the Government Pleader for respondents. We have also gone through the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the scheme of option and judgment, we do not find anything illegal about the legal proposition laid down by the learned single Judge, inasmuch as the scheme does not provide for an opportunity for re-option. In otherwords, once option is exercised and accepted by the respondents, the same does not call for a change. However, in this case admittedly litigation has been going on with regard to the approval of appointment of the W.A. 1734/2011 2 appellant and the date with reference to which the approval has to be granted. Though at first the appointment of the appellant was approved with effect from 6/6/2001, it was modified later through the final judgment wherein the appointment stands approved with effect from 23/7/1999. So much so, there has been a change in the service conditions of the appellant by virtue of the judgment issued subsequent to the date of exercise of option by the appellant. We feel as a special case and also on account of subsequent development, the appellant should be given an opportunity to change the option for pay revision. We, accordingly direct the respondents to revise the appellant's option for the purpose of pay revision from 6/6/2005 to 1/7/2004, if she is otherwise eligible under the scheme. We do not think there is scope for granting arrears for the period from 1/7/2004 till 6/6/2005. However, except for payment of arrears, the respondents should re-fix the date of option for pay revision to the appellant as 1/7/2004 instead of 6/6/205 already fixed. Increment and other benefits should be given from 1st January 2012 onwards based on the change of option for pay revision from 1/7/2004 onwards. W.A. 1734/2011 3 3. The writ appeal is allowed as above. However, we make it clear that the benefit is granted as an exceptional case, which need not be followed as a Rule by the respondents. It is also clarified that if the facts stated with regard to the date of approval of appointment of the appellant is altered by any subsequent order issued by the statutory authority, then the relief granted above is subject to such changes if any. Sd/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. To Judge W.A. 1734/2011 4