IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15375 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSEPH ZACHARIA V.J., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. V.L.JOSEPH, VELASSERIL HOUSE, (POLICE CONSTABLE, H.C.8141 (GRADE) PIS CODE - 30000819, ISLAND POLICE, STATION, WELLINGTON ISLAND, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, (PAY REVISION ANOMALY RECTIFICATION CELL), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, KOCHI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).15375/2010 ....................... Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that pursuant to Ext.P5, he exercised option for the benefit of 2004 Pay Revision and the date of option was wrongly specified as 1.3.2006. This, according to the petitioner, was a mistake and the date he intended to opt was 1.7.2006. Immediately on realising the mistake, he submitted Ext.P6 for correcting the date of option. It is stated that thereupon, he was told that a fresh option should be exercised and that on 14.11.2006, a fresh option was exercised. According to the petitioner, this was within the time specified in Ext.P5 for exercising option. Request for correction and the fresh option exercised on 14.11.2006 were not acted upon and therefore he submitted Ext.P7 representation which was followed by Ext.P8 to the 1st respondent. Orders have not been passed. Hence the writ petition is filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader points out that in view of Circular No.45/2010, option once exercised is final and W.P.(C).15375/10 2 therefore, re-option cannot be exercised. However, fact remains that according to the petitioner, there was a bona fide mistake and the question of re-option does not arise. This is a matter for the respondents to consider. 3. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P8 before the 1st respondent, I feel it is only appropriate that the 1st respondent should consider Ext.P8. This the 1st respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs