IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 15132 of 2005(B) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. A. MALINI DEVI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. S.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, HEADMISTRESS, GOVERNMENT TRIBUNAL HIGH SCHOOL, MEENANGAL, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. 2. K. SIVADASAN PILLAI, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. R. KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL & HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, VELLANAD, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH - GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15132 of 2005(B) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.84704/PRU.1/04/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.38291/E2/04/G. EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF DECISION REPORTED IN 2002(1) KLT 157. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15132 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are a Headmistress and a High School Assistant respectively in Government Schools. They have filed this writ petition seeking parity of pay with that of their junior namely Sri. Vidhyadharan. He is drawing more pay than the petitioners. According to the petitioners, in view of Ext.P3 judgment, the petitioners are entitled to parity in pay with that of the junior. The petitioners seek the following reliefs: “(a) call for the records relating to Exhibits P-1 and P- 2 and quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to allow one more chance to the Petitioners for filing re- option for fixing pay equal to juniors to the Petitioners. (c) direct the Respondents to step up the pay of the Petitioners as Rs.8150/- with effect from 1-11-2003 i.e. from the date of their junior Sri. Vidyadharan started to draw. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that there is no universal rule that always seniors should draw more pay than the juniors. According to them, there can be many reasons why a junior would draw higher pay than the W.P.(C)No.15132/05 2 senior. One such instance is fixation on the basis of option on pay revision. Junior may get more pay than the seniors depending on the date of option submitted by the junior. According to them, in this case, the junior happened to draw more pay than the petitioners because of the options submitted by him. They would submit that if the petitioners had also opted judiciously like the junior, they would also have received higher pay. It is pointed out that the junior submitted re-option after refunding the excess amount drawn by him, which option could have been availed of by the petitioners also which they did not. The petitioners would submit that they should also be given another chance for filing re-option so that they can also have their pay fixed on par with that of the junior. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. First paragraph of Ext.P3 judgment itself shows that the judgment would not automatically become applicable to the petitioners. First paragraph of the Ext.P3 judgment reads thus: “The point that arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal is whether the drawal by the junior of higher pay than his admitted senior is arbitrary and is in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution in the facts W.P.(C)No.15132/05 3 and circumstances of the case. There cannot be any universal rule that a junior can in no circumstance draw higher pay than his senior. Where the junior is a promotee and the senior is a direct recruit to a particular cadre, the junior will be drawing higher pay. There may be a variety of similar circumstances justifying the drawal of higher pay by a junior. Therefore, the decision on the point raised by the appellant will largely depend upon the facts of this case. The minimum facts necessary for the decision of the case are the following: xxxx xxx xxx” Therefore, it all depends on the facts of each case. In this case, unlike in Ext.P3 decision, there is a definite reason as to why the petitioners are drawing less pay than their junior. Their junior had, at the appropriate time, judiciously exercised a re-option, pursuant to pay revision, consequent on which only he started drawing higher pay than the petitioners. While the junior was diligent, the petitioners all along remained satisfied with their original option and fixation of pay on the basis of such option. They did not exercise re-option when they were offered a chance for the same. In fact, the Government gave sufficient opportunity to all Government servants to make re-option pursuant to pay revision orders. The petitioners cannot also now seek a fresh chance for re- option for the purpose of getting equal pay to that of their junior, since the time limit prescribed for exercising re-option W.P.(C)No.15132/05 4 is long over. The fact that the petitioners were aware that the difference in pay was on account of their option is clear from prayer number (b) of the writ petition. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.15132/05 5