IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19117 of 2004(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.SOSAMMA VARGHEESE, HEADMISTRESS (RTD), MANGATTETHU, NADUMONKAVU P.O., KOODAL (VIA), PATHANAMTHITTA-689 693. RETIRED HEADMISTRESS, GOVT. L.P.SCHOOL, NEDUVANKAVU EAST. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.P.M.BENZIR SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KONNI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LALIZA T Y THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NO. B 1556/2001 DATED 8.10.2001 EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 16.8.2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 18.11.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMNET DT. 17.2.2003 IN OP NO. 5317/2003 OF THIS HON ' BLE COURT EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DT.18.11.2003 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT REJECTING EXT.P3 REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 19117 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the cancellation of re- option exercised by her and the consequent refund effected from her which was confirmed as per Ext.P5. Ext.P5 was passed pursuant to consideration directed by this Court, in earlier proceedings issued in Ext.P4. The main contention of the writ petitioner in the writ petition as pointed out by the petitioner's counsel is that one another person Smt.Mercy Abraham who retired as Head Mistress also had been granted re-option which entitled her to draw excess salary. The Government Pleader however points out that in the counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that the re-option exercised by the said Mercy Abraham has also been found to be not in order and refund has been effected from the said person also. In the circumstances, I am of the view that nothing survives in the above writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //True copy// P.A To Judge