IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 OP.No. 9539 of 2003(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.A.VARKEY S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 54 YEARS, P.C.2887, CONSTABLE, OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT (RESIDING AT PADAVETTIL HOUSE, P.O.POOVANCHIRA, PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, ADVOCATE. MR.K.E.HAMZA, ADVOCATE. MR.E.S.ASHRAF, ADVOCATE. MR.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. BY MR. A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 9539/2003 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF G.O.(P) No.615/97/(138)/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD. 28.6.97. EXT. P2 : COPY OF G.O.(P) No.352/96/(86)/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD. 11.4.96. EXT. P3 : COPY OF G.O.(P) No.38/98/(152)/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD.5.1.98. EXT. P4 : COPY OF G.O.(P) No.399/99/(178)/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD. 5.2.99. EXT. P5 : COPY OF G.O.(Ms.) No.1333/99/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD. 30.4.99. EXT. P6 : COPY OF G.O.(P) No.1503/99/(180)/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD.22.6.99. EXT. P7 : COPY OF FORM OF OPTION OF PETITIONER DTD. 30.4.99. EXT. P8 : COPY OF AUDIT OBJECTION OF PETITIONER DTD. 12.7.02. EXT. P9 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.No.2293/02 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 25.9.02. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- O.P. No.9539 OF 2003 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the denial of the benefit of re-option submitted by him as per Exhibit P7. He seeks for a direction to fix the pay and to grant consequential monetary benefits. 2. The petitioner was working as Constable in the Ollur Police Station in Thrissur District at the time of filing of the writ petition. As per various orders issued namely, Exhibits P1 to P6, the Government allowed the facility for submitting option/re- option. According to the petitioner, he has submitted re-option in terms of Exhibit P4 Government Order within the time provided therein. The pay of the petitioner was fixed. When the 3rd respondent did not accept the re-option, the petitioner filed O.P.No.23323/2001 wherein a direction was issued to consider the representation filed by him. After considering the representation, Exhibit P8 order has been passed, which is under O.P. No.9539/2003 2 challenge in this writ petition. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons stated to reject the representation cannot be supported. Mainly it is pointed out in Exhibit P8 that the re-option can be made only in respect of the 1st Higher Grade after 01.03.1992 that too between 01.06.1996 and 05.01.1998. It is submitted that there is no such stipulation in Exhibit P4. Exhibit P4 accorded permission to exercise option/re-option to those employees who could not exercise option/re-option for time bound higher grades sanctioned on or after 01.03.1992, due to the prevalence of cut-off date. Such option/re-option will be exercised within a period of three months from the date of the order. 4. Exhibit P7 is the re-option claimed to have been submitted by the petitioner which is dated 30.04.1999. Therefore, if Exhibit P7 was duly submitted, it should have been accepted and the reason stated in Exhibit P8 that he can opt Higher Grade only between 01.06.1996 and 05.01.1998, being O.P. No.9539/2003 3 not a part of Exhibit P4, cannot be supported. But, there is another difficulty for the petitioner. In fact, this writ petition was allowed earlier by this Court by judgment dated 21.03.2003. Later, the respondents filed a review petition pointing out that the re-option submitted by the petitioner has not been received and the review petition was allowed as per order in R.P.No.383/2004. The writ petition was restored to file and the respondents in the writ petition were directed to file counter affidavit. Accordingly, they have filed a counter affidavit in the matter. With regard to the receipt of Exhibit P7, it is stated in various paragraphs that the same has not been received either in the Ollur Police Station or in the Head of Office. It is specifically averred in paragraph 5 that the records available in the Ollur Police Station revealed that the petitioner has not submitted a valid re-option. No reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner disputing the same. 5. In the light of the said averment, it can only be safely presumed that Exhibit P7 was not received and hence cannot be treated as a valid re-option. If that be so, I need not go into the O.P. No.9539/2003 4 other aspects pointed out by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exhibit P8 will show that the re- option was duly submitted. The said order is passed on a representation filed by the petitioner and therefore it will not help the petitioner. If a re-option was submitted in terms of Exhibit P4 and within the time allowed, then only the authorities could have acted upon it. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp