IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 568 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.151/2010 Dated 08/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:- ---------------------------------------------------- K.M.JOSEPH, S/O.MATHEW KUTTIPURATHINGAL HOUSE, P.O.VALLILAPUZHA RETIRED AEO. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS:- -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION SECRETARAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MALAPPURAM PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON 06/07/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Review Petition No.568 of 2010 in Writ Appeal No.151 of 2010. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010. O R D E R Gopinathan, J. Respondent in WA.No.151/2010 seeks review of our judgment dated 8.6.2010. The petitioner, a retired Headmaster in State service, got his pay fixed in pursuance of the Pay Revision Order, 1997 after counting his service in an aided school. The audit party objected and steps were ahead for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,800.00 drawn in excess. Assailing the recovery proceedings, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 2. The learned single Judge, by judgment dated 24.3.2008 found that the petitioner is not entitled to have RP.No.568/2010 in WA.No.151/2010. -: 2 :- his pay fixed after counting his service in the aided school. Consequently, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the recovery proceedings was disallowed. However, though not sought, the learned Judge allowed the petitioner to file a re- option within three weeks from the date of judgment. In appeal by the respondents, we set aside the permission granted to the petitioner to file a re-option. While disposing the appeal, we have taken note that the re-option is yet to be submitted. 3. The petitioner would now contend that he had earlier submitted re-option as evidenced by Annexures-A1, A2 and A3, copy of which were not produced in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the review petitioner vehemently argued that what was granted by the single Judge is nothing but a re-option as the respondents failed to consider Annexures-A1, A2 and A3 re-options. Going by Annexures-A1, A2 and A3, we find that those re-options were filed in 2006 and 2008. It is nearly a decade after the RP.No.568/2010 in WA.No.151/2010. -: 3 :- pay revision. Thereafter, there were two pay revision orders. There is no case for the petitioner that there was any impediment in requesting for a re-option earlier. In the above circumstance, we find no reason to review our judgment dated 8.6.2010. 4. The learned counsel had also submitted that yet in another case the petitioner therein was permitted to consider a re-option. It was a case in which this Court earlier issued a writ to that effect which remained unchallenged. We have given specific reasons to distinguish the same with the case on hand. There is no error to be rectified in review. There is no good reason to unsettle the things which were settled for more than 13 years. Adding to that, there is nothing produced to show that by the re-option, the petitioner would get any substantial benefit. If there would be any substantial benefit, the petitioner would have resorted to it long back. The present request for re-option is only an experimental RP.No.568/2010 in WA.No.151/2010. -: 4 :- attempt. Irrespective of the aided school service added or not added for fixing pay, the petitioners could have and ought to have preferred a re-option decade back. There was no impediment in preferring a re-option in time. At this long distance of time, we find no bonafides. This review petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (Judge) P.S.GOPINATHAN (Judge) kvs/-