IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 30288 of 2007(E) PETITIONER: ------------ K.SREEKUMARI AMMA HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, KR GPM HSS & VHSS ODANAVATTOM,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM RESIDING AT KOCHUKALIYIKAVILAYIL HOUSE NEDUMPANA P.O. NEDUMPANA. NAME OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS 'R.SREEKUMARI AMMA' VIDE ORDER DATED 10.7.2008 IN I.A.NO.6724 OF 2008. BY ADV. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVAD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION KOLLAM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. HEADMASTER, KR GPM VHSS ODANAVATTOM, KOTTARAKKARA KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 30288 OF 2007 E -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th July, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, while working as High School Assistant, re-opted for pay revision with effect from 7.12.1996. However, the re-option was exercised on 13.4.1999. It is stated that the petitioner cleared off the excess amount drawn till 6.12.1996. An audit objection was raised in Ext.P1 wherein it is stated that excess amount drawn up to 13.4.1999, the date of exercise of re-option, should be refunded. The petitioner sent Ext.P2 reply. Later, Ext.P4 order dated 19.9.2007 was passed, rejecting the contention put forward by the petitioner. The view taken in Ext.P4 is that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of re-option only from the date on which it was exercised and not from the effective date of re- option. It was held in Ext.P4 that the petitioner has to refund the benefit which she has availed till 13.4.1999. 2. The view taken in Ext.P4 is quite contrary to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Lissy Joseph (2005 (4) KLT Short Note 70 case No.97), wherein it is held that higher grades are admissible from the date of effect of re-option and not from the date of exercise of re-option. Therefore, I quash Ext.P4 and hold that the petitioner is not liable to refund the amount as directed in Ext.P4. W.P.(C) NO.30288 of 2007 :: 2 :: 3. Learned Government Pleader submitted that against the decision of the Division Bench, S.L.P.No.2662 of 2006 and connected cases have been filed before the Honourable Supreme Court. It is made clear that if the Honourable Supreme Court takes a contrary view, appropriate orders could be passed in the case of the petitioner as well by the Deputy Director of Education on the basis of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/