IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 24894 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.U.JOY, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. DANIEL, H.S.A (NATURAL SCIENCE) P.P. XI , H.S.S. BHARANICKAVU ALLEPPY DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ADDITIONAL R4 IMPLEADED --------------------------------------------- ADDL.R4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA; IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 8.4.10 IN IA.4883/10 R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24894 of 2007(L) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX ---------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.5.2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. : COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 23.1.2006 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.5.2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET.3/36669/05/DPI/D.DIS DATED 6.7.2005. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ET.3/77824/05/DPI/D.DIS DATED 19.4.2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.24894/2007-L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by communication produced as Ext.P3 of the District Educational Officer whereby the Headmistress was directed to submit a proposal for refixation of pay without changing the option dates. 2. It is a case where the appointment of the petitioner was approved with effect from 16/06/1982 as High School Assistant. Initially, his appointment was approved by the Department only from 01/09/1983 to 05/04/1984 and from 04/06/1984 onwards. For getting approval from 16/06/1982, the petitioner had been moving various authorities and this Court. Finally, by Ext.P4 order, the Director of Public Instruction allowed his revision petition and directed to approve his appointment, as H.S.A (Natural Science) in St.Benedicts MSC HS, Thannithode, with effect from 16/06/1982. Thereafter, the District Educational Officer passed Ext.P5 order granting vacation salary W.P.(C). No.24894/2007 -:2:- since he has got continuous service from 16/06/1982 to 31/03/1984. 3. The petitioner thereafter moved for revising the increments and pay fixation with effect from the dates which are most advantageous, for the pay revisions of the years 1983, 1988, 1992 and 1997 and the Higher and Senior Grades also. Ext.P2 is the copy of the request made by him. 4. The petitioner contends that since his appointment has been approved from 16/06/1982 and since he was having un-interrupted service since 16/06/1982, he is entitled for all consequential benefits. It is pointed out that acceptance of revised option are only consequent to the approval. It is further pointed out that the respondents have accepted the proposal to revise the pay but has not allowed the petitioner to submit revised option in respect of the date of option. It is pointed out that unless the same is allowed by revising the scale of pay, he will not be getting any benefit. Evidently, the approval from 16/06/1982 will have an impact on the scale of pay, increments, higher W.P.(C). No.24894/2007 -:3:- grade etc. He is legally entitled for that, going by the approval granted. 5. The difficulty pointed out in the counter affidavit of the second respondent-Director of Public Instructions is that in order to change the option already exercised, Government sanction is necessary as per G.O.(P).No.101/80/(167)Fin dated 30/01/1980. The proposal for the same submitted by the District Educational Officer to the second respondent was returned by the second respondent with a direction to regularise the pay of the petitioner with immediate effect and it is accordingly, the instruction Ext.P3 was issued. 6. In the light of the admitted position and the entitlement of the petitioner for getting revised pay, the petitioner will have to be given a chance to submit the revised option. The communication Ext.P3 to the extent to which it denies the right to submit revised option cannot therefore be upheld. Therefore, Ext.P3 to that extent is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to submit the revised option in respect of all the pay W.P.(C). No.24894/2007 -:4:- revisions from the year 1982 onwards within a period of one month along with a copy of this Judgment to the additional fourth respondent, who will verify the same and re-fix the scale of pay as well as other benefits within a further period of two months. Since the petitioner is stated to be retiring from service, his retirement benefits will also be reconstructed accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms