IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 429 of 2005() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17443/2004 Dated 08/09/2004 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE WPC ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES (E) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,FINANCE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WPC ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.SATHEESAN,DISTRICT REGISTRAR (AUDIT) KOTTAYAM (DIED)*. *ADDL.R2. LOLITHA SATHEESAN, W/O.K.V.SATHEESAN, SARATH BHAVAN, KALAKKAL ROAD, VAIKOM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA. *ADDL.R3. SARATH, S/O.K.V.SATHEESAN, SARATH BHAVAN, KALAKKAL ROAD, VAIKOM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, KERALA. (ADDL.R2 AND R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS LRS OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 1/6/2010 IN IA 144/2010.) ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA FOR ADDL.R 2 & 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============================== W.A. NO. 429 OF 2005 =================== Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. The respondents in WP(C) No.17443/2004 are the appellants. 2. The respondent herein filed the above writ petition mainly seeking a direction to the appellants to permit him to re- opt for 1997 pay revision. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to afford an opportunity to the respondent for re- option. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, writ appeal is filed. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is to be interfered with in as much as the said view is against the plain terms of Ext.R2(b) Government Order, on the basis of which re-option was sought. Ext.R2(b) in so far as it is relevant reads as follows: Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to order that in cases involving retrospective promotions, Government sanction is not necessary for allowing reoption. Such reoption should be exercised within three months from the date of order sanctioning retrospective WA No.429/05 : 2 : promotion. Appointing authorities should take a decision on such requests within one month from the date of receipt of request for reoption. It is also ordered that the facility to exercise reoption will be admissible only if the date of effect of retrospective promotion is prior to the date of option of the employees.” 4. A reading of the last sentence of the aforesaid order shows that the benefit of re-option is available only if the date of effect of retrospective promotion given to a Government servant is prior to the date of option of the employees. Admittedly, in this case, the date on which the option was originally exercised by the respondent was 19/1/2000 and the retrospective promotion given to him is w.e.f. 1/11/1998. Therefore, if the date of option is treated as the date of exercise of option, the learned Judge cannot be said to have committed any illegality in the view taken. 5. The learned Government Pleader contended that the term “date of option” available in Ext.R2(b) meant the effective date of option and not the date of exercise of option. We have considered this submission and are of the view that the plain terms of the Government Order does not call for an interpretation as canvassed by the learned Government Pleader. In any case, a reading of the relevant portion of Ext.R2(b) indicates that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is a plausible view. In an appeal the judgment will not be interfered with if the view taken WA No.429/05 : 3 : by the learned Judge is a plausible one. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Writ appeal is dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR CHIEF JUSTICE. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE. Rp