IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2967 of 2005(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. B.ANOOP, SECRETARY, KERALA CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES UNION [CITU] REG.NO.P.431/75. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK UNIT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. V.L.VINOD, ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OEPRATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN, R2 BY ADV. SRI. T.R. HARIKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.2967/2005-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS). NO. 16/2000/CO-OP. DTD. 25/01/2000. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O. (P). NO. 3000/98/FIN. DTD. 25/11/1998 REGARDING HOW OPTION CAN BE EXERCISED. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27/06/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28/06/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (RT). NO. 271/04/CO-OP. DTD. 25/05/2004 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.2967 of 2005 ================================== Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The first petitioner is the secretary of a trade union and the second petitioner is an employee of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. The issue arises for consideration is as to whether it was appropriate that a cut off date was fixed for the purpose of exercising option. The Government, repelling that contention, has issued Ext.P5 stating four different reasons. Firstly, it is stated that the pay structure and service conditions of the State Government employees and the bank are different. There could be no dispute on this. Secondly, it is stated that the benefits envisaged for Government employees cannot be extended to WPC2967/2005 -:2:- employees of Co-operative societies. This is also beyond dispute. Thirdly, it is stated that even in the earlier pay revision orders, employees were allowed only one year period for exercise of their option. This is also not refuted. Fourthly, it is also stated in Ext.P5 that the impugned pay revision order was arrived at after discussing with the service organizations and no issue relating to fixation of outer limit for exercising option was raised. 2. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons contained in Ext.P5 and the further undisputed averments in the counter affidavit of the second respondent, particularly to the effect that the provision in Clause 14 of Ext.P1 fixing a period of one year from 1-7-1998 to WPC2967/2005 -:3:- exercise option to come over to the revised scale of pay was fixed as per the recommendation of the One Man Commission and was accepted by trade unions, I find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings. Writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sl/14.7.