IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20886 of 2009(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KALADHARAN, S/O.R.KUNJUKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS,CHAITANYA,VALLIYODE,ANCHUMURTHY.PO, PALAKKAD-678 682,U.D.CLERK OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION(RETIRED),PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , GENERAL EDUCATION (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20886/2009-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24/05/2008 OF THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/07/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE FORMS OF OPTIONS IN RELATION TO VARIOUS ORDERS OF PAY FIXATION. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DETAILED PAY FIXATION STATEMENT DUE TO THE CHANGE IN THE DATE OF INCREMENT AS PER EXT.P.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE G.O. DTD. 19/11/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 14/01/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/02/2009 OF THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20886/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 22th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The request of the petitioner for exercising re-option for the benefit of 1978 pay revision and 1983 pay revision has been rejected and this is sought to be challenged in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner was a U.D.Clerk in the office of the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P1, his provisional service preceding his regular appointment was given credit and as a result of which, the date of higher grade promotions were changed. Subsequently petitioner exercised re- option for the benefit of pay revision orders which was rejected. The reason stated in the statement is as follows:- “It is submitted that the request of the petitioner to exercise re-option is not permissible since as per para 16 of Annexure II G.O.(P). No.145/06/Fin dated 25.3.2006, re-option cannot be allowed for any pay revision except in cases involving retrospective revision or change in scale of pay that takes into a date prior to the date of option exercised by the employee on the concerned pay revision. In the instant case no such situation W.P.(C).20886/09 2 exists. Apart from that, re-option for time bound higher grade promotion is not permissible as per rules. Therefore the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. But it was clarified that his pay can be refixed based on the enhanced pay without changing the option.” 3. A reading of clause 16 of Annexure II G.O.(P).No.145/06/Fin dated 25.3.2006, which is extracted in paragraph 6 of the writ petition shows that re-option will be allowed only in the case of retrospective revision in the scale of pay, that takes effect prior to the date of option exercised by the employee as a consequence of implementation of pay revision. This is precisely is the stand taken by the respondents. Admittedly the re-option in the case of the petitioner was not necessitated in any of the circumstances, contemplated in clause 16 of Annexure II to G.O.(P).No.145/06. Therefore, rejection of re-option exercised by the petitioner cannot be faulted. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs