IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12484 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SUSEELAN, DRIVER, SAINIK ROAD, KAZHAKOOTTAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL, SAINIK SCHOOL, KAZHAKOOTTAM, SAINIK SCHOOL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 585. 2. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS, SAINIK SCHOOLS SOCIETY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 12484 of 2010 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 4TH PAY COMMISSION EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.3.09 IN W.P.(C).35779/04 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.7.09 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.10.09 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.2052/SST/09 DATED 13.11.09 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).12484/2010 ....................... Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Driver in the Sainik Schook, Kazhakoottam. By Ext.P1, Pension Scheme was introduced and the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme beneficiaries were permitted to exercise option to come over to the Pension Scheme. 2. According to the petitioner, he was not given notice and therefore, he could not exercise option within the time specified by the authorities. It is stated that subsequently, he submitted Ext.P2 option. That was not acted upon and therefore, he submitted Ext.P5 representation also to the 2nd respondent. Petitioner submits that his case was recommended by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P6. Thereafter also no action has been taken. 3. According to the petitioner, similarly situated person who was a driver of the Sainik School, Kazhakoottam, where the petitioner is also working, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). 35779/2004 and that the said writ petition was disposed of by W.P.(C).12484/10 2 Ext.P3 judgment dated 27.3.2009 holding that in the absence of individual notice calling upon employees like the petitioner to exercise their option, the belated option exercised, should be acted upon. Petitioner submits that having regard to the similarity of his facts, he is also entitled to similar benefits. 4. As stated by the petitioner, since his case is similar to the person who obtained Ext.P3 judgment, there is no reason why the petitioner should be denied similar benefits. 5. Therefore, as according to the petitioner, Ext.P2 option and Ext.P5 representation duly recommended by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P6, are pending consideration of the 2nd respondent, at this stage all that is required is that the 2nd respondent should consider Exts.P2, P5 and P6 in the light of Ext.P3 judgment referred to above. On that basis, orders on Exts.P2 and P5 shall be passed. This the 2nd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).12484/10 3 6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs