IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22366 of 2007(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. A.VARGHESE MATHEW, S/O.A.M.VARKEY,AGED 57 YEARS, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/CONCURRENT AUDITOR(RETD.) IRINKALAKUDA CO-OPERATOVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., IRINJALAKUDA,THRISSUR. (RESIDING AT ARISSERIL HOUSE, ELINJIPRA POST 680 721, CHALAKUDY) 2. T.A. DEVADASAN, SENIOR INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (RETD). RESIDING AT THERUPARAMBIL, CHEMMANNOOR (VIA) KANIPPAYOOR, PIN 680 517, THRISSUR. 3. P.L. SUSHAMA, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (AUDIT), ERNAKULAM. 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (AUDIT), THRISSUR. R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL SYRIAC, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 22366 of 2007(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.930/93/(2)/FIN.OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.615/97/(138)/FIN.OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE -DO- OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE -DO- OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.61279/PRU.3/2001/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P NO.14602/2002-L EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.53811/PRU.3/2002/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.53811/PRU.3/2002/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P NO.12457/2001-G. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.32156/2003-C EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.68227/PRU-3/04/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.773/99/(10)/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 22366 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners submitted their options for coming over to the new revised scale of pay as per 1992 pay revision order. Later on, the petitioners submitted re-options on 9.2.2001, 11.2.2002 and 11.2.2002 respectively, which were beyond the last date prescribed by the Government for submitting re-options. Those re-options were rejected by Ext.P9 order. The petitioners challenged that order in W.P. (C).No.32156/2003, wherein the Government was directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioners in the light of Ext.P10 judgment in O.P.No.12457/2001. The Government again considered the petitioners' claim and rejected the same by Ext.P12 order. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) call for the records relating to Exhibit P12 and quash the original of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. (b) declare that the Petitioners are entitled to the benefit of option granted by Exhibits P1 and P2. (c) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to grant the benefit of re-option and consequential benefits thereof within a time limit.” 2. The contention of the petitioners is that in Ext.P11 this Court has found that the reason in Ext.P9 order is unsustainable in w.p.c.22366/07 - : 2 :- view of Ext.P10 judgment. It is thereafter this Court directed the Government to reconsider the issue. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioners on the same ground is clearly unjustified, is the contention raised. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent seeking to controvert the contentions of the petitioners. 4. Admittedly the Government has fixed a time limit for exercising re-option. That time limit was only upto 28.9.1997. Admittedly the petitioners exercised their re-option only on 9.2.2001, 11.2.2002 and 11.2.2002 respectively. Therefore, the petitioners' re- options were well beyond the period prescribed by the Government for re-option. The reliance by the petitioners on Ext.P10 judgment is misplaced according to me. Ext.P10 relates to a High School Assistant, whose salary had to be re-fixed on the basis of an audit objection. This Court held that in the case of re-fixaiton of pay on the ground of audit objections, the Government servant or the teacher is entitled to a chance for re-option. By Ext.P11 judgment, the petitioners' claim has been directed to be considered in the light of Ext.P10. Ext.P10 judgment is not applicable to the petitioners' case, since there is no audit objection and consequent re-fixation of pay of the petitioners. If the petitioners' contention that even in such cases re-option can be permitted, then there would not be any time limit for re-option and the w.p.c.22366/07 - : 3 :- Government order limiting the time for re-option would be meaningless. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioners have filed re- options years after the last date fixed for filing of re-options. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge