IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33003 of 2007(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.K.KESAVAN, S/O.V.K.KUNJAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT `PADMA NIVAS', ELAMBACHI-671 311, (RETD. HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (HINDI), P.M.S.A.P.T.S. V.H.S. SCHOOL, KAIKOTTUKADAVU, P.O.ELAMBACHI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT) BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANHANGAD, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, P.M.S.A.P.T.S. V.H.S. SCHOOL, KAIKOTTUKADAVU, P.O.ELAMBACHI-671 311, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI T.T.MOHAMOOD FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.33003/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF OPTION OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 30/4/99. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL DTD.28/7/99. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF TH ORDER NO.N.DIS. 3983/99 OF THE DIST. EDUCATIONL OFFICER DTD.21/8/99. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.23200/2006 DTD.29/8/2006. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(Rt).NO.3875/07/G. EDN. OF THE GOVT. DTD 20/8/2007. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.1503/99/(180)/FIN. OF TH GOVT. DTD. 22/6/99. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.33003 OF 2007 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P5 order passed by the lst respondent. The Government by Ext.P6 order clarified that all the applications for option/re-option submitted by employees between 5/2/1999 and 4/5/1999 will be entertained subject to the specific condition that no further re-option will be allowed in the matter on any account. On the basis of this order the petitioner exercised re- option on 30/4/1999 with effect from 1/8/1997 before the Headmaster of the School, who countersigned the re-option on 30/4/1999 itself. But the same was submitted to the District Educational Officer only on 29/7/1999 for further action. The District Educational Officer did not accept the same. Petitioner has approached the Government and simultaneously filed W.P.(C). No.23200/2006 before this Court. This Court directed the Government to consider the grievance of the petitioner. Ext.P5 is -2- W.P.(C).No.33003/2007 the order passed by the Government rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The reason stated for rejecting the re-option proposal is that the same is time-barred and that the request of the petitioner in the revision petition is also not admissible under the provisions in Government Circular No.46/90/Fin. Dated 22/6/1990 which stipulated time limit for refunding of the excess payment on account of exercising re- option. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 order is unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore illegal. Ext.P1 is the option dated 30/4/1999 submitted by the petitioner, which was duly countersigned by the Headmaster, within the time limit prescribed in Ext.P6. It is submitted at the bar that there was some confusion in G.O.(P) 399/99/(178)/Fin. dated 5/2/1999 permitting re-option within three months. Subsequently the Government issued G.O.(Ms). 1333/99/Fin dated 30/4/1999 staying the said order dated 5/2/1999. The 3rd G.O. dated 30/4/1999 was stayed by this Court as per interim order dated 11/5/1999 in O.P.No11600/99. -3- W.P.(C).No.33003/2007 Thereafter the service organizations represented for cancellation of the G.O. dated 5/2/1999, which caused undue hardship to the Government employees. The Government issued Ext.P6 order granting the relief as sought for by the service organizations. Due to the conflicting orders passed by the Government during the relevant period the Headmaster in confusion did not forward the application to the District Educational Officer. In fact the option was submitted within the time allowable under Ext.P6 and therefore, there is no justification in saying that the said re-option proposal is time barred. In the circumstances, Ext.P5 order is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to grant the benefit conferred on the employees to the petitioner as per Ext.P6 order. Appropriate orders shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition s disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge kcv.