IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8312 of 2006(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V. PADMAVATHI, AGED 58 YEARS, RETIRED TEACHER, NEAR KANKOLE L.P.S. KANKOLE P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.28.8.1999 EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF REPORT ON CHECKING OF FIXATION OF PAY EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.20.1.2003 EXT.P3(A)-TRUE COPY OF CHALAN RECEIPT EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY R3 EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.27.12.2005 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 8312 of 2006-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is seeking for a direction for implementation of Ext.P6 which evidences the fact that the reoption submitted by the petitioner for 1997 pay revision has been admitted. In fact, the present reoption was submitted after the reoption which was submitted earlier, was found irregular by the audit party. 2. The petitioner was working as LPSA who retired from service on 30.6.2006. She was granted the benefit of 1992 pay revision and was drawing salary in accordance with the revised scale. For the 1997 pay revision the petitioner had opted the revised scale with effect from 1.3.1997. In fact, based on G.O. No.399/178/99 dated 5.2.1999 the petitioner submitted a reoption for the 1992 pay revision with effect from 3.8.1996. Consequently, reoption for the 1997 pay revision with effect from 1.8.1997 was also submitted and the same was sanctioned as per Ext.P1 order. This was objected in the audit and the stand taken was that as far as 1997 pay revision is concerned, the reoption submitted is not correct. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.9,653/- was refunded by the petitioner, being wpc 8312/2006 2 the alleged excess payment in respect of the 1992 pay revision and another amount of Rs.20,537/- was recovered from the DCRG, being the alleged excess payment pursuant to reoption in respect of 1997 pay revision. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation seeking for permission to re-opt 1997 pay revision and restoration of benefits. The further communication to the petitioner in this regard, has been produced as Ext.P5, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner can submit reoption in respect of 1997 pay revision and she was directed to approach the Assistant Educational Officer, Payyannur. Ext.P6 is a further communication which refers to G.O.(P)365/2005(150) dated 6.8.2005 which permitted reoption. This communication also shows that reoption has been admitted. Since the petitiioner has not been disbursed the monetary benefits, this writ petition has been field seeking for various reliefs. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. It is clear from para 5 of the counter affidavit that the reoption submitted by the petitioner in respect of 1997 pay revision, has been accepted. It is mentioned in the said paragraph that the petitioner exercised reoption to 1997 pay revision as per G.O.(P) No.365/05/Fin. dated 6.8.2005 and it is accepted and the fixation of pay was admitted by the second respondent. It is reiterated in para 8 of the counter affidavit also. wpc 8312/2006 3 4. What remains therefore, is the grant of benefits to the petitioner based on the reoption exercised by her. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the above noted averments in the counter affidavit, the benefits have not been granted so far. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to grant due benefits based on the reoption submitted by the petitioner in respect of the 1997 pay revision and to revise the pensionary benefits accordingly. Appropriate orders will be passed and arrears will be disbursed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/