IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 17160 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.V.RAJU, H.S.A., GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, THIRUVAMKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED: ADDL.R2: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.12.2010 IN I.A.No.16309/10) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.17160/09 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF GO(P)NO.1480/99/FIN. DT.17.6.99 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF GO(P)NO.990/2000/FIN. DT.27.6.2000 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.22.8.07 IN W.A.NO.1778/04. EXT.P4: COPY OF PETITION DT.12.2.08 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF LETTER DT.3.3.08 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF GO(P)NO.101/80/167/FIN. DT.30.6.80. EXT.P7: COPY OF GO(RT)NO.2260/09/ G.EDN. DT.8.6.09. EXT.P8: COPY OF LETTER DT.3.11.10 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P9: COPY OF LETTER DT.11.11.10 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.17160 Of 2009-L -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 J U D G M E N T This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Exhibit P7 order passed by the Government, whereby the request made by the petitioner for re-option of pay revision benefits was not allowed on the ground that there is no provision for the same as it involves retrospective revision of change in the scale of pay. 2. The petitioner was a High School Assistant in the Government High School, Thiruvankulam. He joined Government service on 7.9.1982. He was having aided school service as HSA from 2.2.1980 to 16.9.1982 prior to his date of joining in the Government Service. 3. Exhibit P1 Government Order dated 17.6.1999 allowed aided school service prior to joining entry in Government High School to be counted for all service benefits including pension. The petitioner and other teachers were granted increments and fixation accordingly. By Exhibit P2 Government Order the same was withdrawn. This was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C)No.17160/09 -2- various Writ Petitions and finally the issue was settled by this Court by Exhibit P3 judgment of the Division Bench. The Division Bench affirmed the judgment in various Writ Petitions and the decision was not in favour of the petitioner. 4. When the Department took steps to refix the pay of the petitioner in the light of withdrawal of Exhibit P1 Government Order, he filed Exhibit P4 representation seeking for permission to exercise re-option in respect of 1992 and 1997 pay revision and in respect of Selection Grade with effect from 1.7.2000. This was initially not agreed to and finally the petitioner approached the Government and the Government has passed Exhibit P7 order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the peculiar situation arose herein is due to the cancellation of the benefits on the withdrawal of Exhibit P1. It is pointed out that the denial of the right for re-option will cause undue hardship to the petitioner, since a refixation as if Exhibit P1 not in force will only harm the benefits of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the petitioner sought for a chance for submission of re- option as per Exhibit P4. W.P.(C)No.17160/09 -3- 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader. 7. Evidently, Exhibit P1 order is dated 17.6.1999. That was cancelled as per Exhibit P2 order dated 27.6.2000. The option submitted by the petitioner was thus affected. In the light of the above peculiar situation, it is only proper that the petitioner is allowed a chance to submit re-option. The issue is covered in favour of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in O.P.No.12457/01 and connected cases. 8. It is well settled that either due to acceptance of audit objection or due to circumstances like this, the option once exercised may have to be cancelled. In such circumstances it is only natural that the person who submitted the option should be given a fresh opportunity to submit the revised option. Herein what is pointed out in Exhibit P7 is a Government Order, namely of the year 2006. That can only apply to the said pay revision and cannot act retrospectively. For all these reasons I allow this Writ Petition. Exhibit P7 order is quashed. There will be a direction to the competent authority,namely the 2nd respondent to accept the re-option submitted by the petitioner and re-fix the various benefits in W.P.(C)No.17160/09 -4- respect of the pay revision of the years 1992, 1997 and Selection Grade for the year 2000. Eligible benefits will be thus quantified and disbursed to the petitioner. If any excess amount has to be adjusted the same also will be done. It is pointed out that the petitioner has already retired from service as Headmaster. Therefore the retirement benefits will have to be re-computed in accordance with the orders to be passed with regard to the pay fixation and the same also will be done expeditiously. No costs. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn