IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 122 of 2005(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SAVITHRI, H.S.A., G.H.S., ERUMAPETTY. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP, ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DY.DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TRICHUR. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.M.MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 122/2005. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HEADMASTER. P2. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION. P3. COPY OF THE OBJECTION. P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE ADALATH. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 122 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner entered the General Education Service of the Government of Kerala, as UPSA on 15.11.1972. She was promoted as H.S.A. in 1994. The petitioner became entitled to Senior Grade on completion of 20 years, with effect from 1.4.1995. On 28.7.1994, the petitioner submitted a re-option for coming over to the senior grade with effect from 15.7.1995. Apparently, this re-option was accepted and pay was fixed on the basis of that option. Later on, the audit party found out that the petitioner could not have filed any re- option on 28.7.1994 in respect of her senior grade, which fell due only on 1.4.1995. Therefore, Ext.P3 audit objection was raised, which reads thus: “XLIX. Smt.P.Savithri, H.S.A (SKT), Government. H.S.Erumapeety. The pay of the teacher in 1992 pay Revision was fixed at Rs.2000 from 1.7.93 in the scale of Rs.1520-2660 and subsequent increment were granted as shown below; Increment on 1.7.94 Rs. 2050 10 1.7.95 2100 20 She had exercised re-option on 28.7.94 for senior Grade from 1.7.95 in the pre-revision scale of Rs.1330-2555 and for 1992 pay Revision from the same date. She had refunded Rs.4776 on 21.10.99 towards excess salary drawn from 1.7.93 – 30.6.94. The repotion was accepted and the fixation of pay was modified with monetary benefit from 1.7.95 as shown below. w.p.c.122/05 2 Rs. 20 year Grade from 1.7.95 in the scale of Rs.1330-2555 2150 1992 Pay Revision from 1.7.95. in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 2360 The teacher was eligible for filing option/re-option to the grades within 3 months from the date of its accrual. As the grade in this case was due only from 31.3.95, there was no provision to opt/reopt the grade on 28.7.94. So the sanction of the grade based on the reoption was not in order. The details of the pay due, pay allowed etc. were as follows: Pay due Pay allowed Pay as on 1.7.95 in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 2180 2360 Increment on 1.7.96 2240 2420 1.7.97 2300 2480 40 1997 Pay Revision from 1.7.97 in the scale of Rs.5500-9075 6800 7500 increment on 1.7.98 6975 7675 1.7.99 7150 7850 The case may be reviewed and its result intimated.” The petitioner is challenging the same. 2. According to the petitioner, although the petitioner submitted a re-option on 28.7.1994, her pay in the senior scale was fixed only with effect from 1.7.1995 and therefore, there is nothing illegal in the re-option having been accepted. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “a) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P3 objection or in the alternative to declare the same as illegal and unenforceable. b) To issue a writ order or direction declaring that the P1 notice and the consequent re-fixation of pay as in Ext.P2 are proper and valid w.p.c.122/05 3 and that the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits following out of the same.” 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that nobody can submit an option or re-option for 20 year higher grade which fell due on 1.4.1995 on any date prior to 1.4.1995. Here, the petitioner has submitted a re-option for coming over to the senior grade scale on 28.7.1994, which could not have been accepted at all, is his submission. Therefore, according to him, the audit objection is certainly valid and proper. 4. I have considered the rival contentions the parties. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled to 20 year senior grade only with effect from 1.4.1995. Therefore, she could not have exercised option, (if at all that option was permissible at all, which itself is doubtful, since option is prescribed only for pay revision and not higher grade) that could have been only on 1.4.1995 or thereafter. Here, admittedly the petitioner submitted her re-option on 28.7.1994, nine months' prior to the petitioner becoming eligible for 20 year higher grade. The same is clearly not permissible. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the audit objection. Consequently the writ petition lacks merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.122/05 4