IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 OP.No. 13827 of 2003(U) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.JOHN MATHEW, THEEMPALANGAD, KARIKKATTOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DT., RTD. H.S.A. TEACHER, C.C.M.H.S.S., KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS RAMAPURAM SMT.ANNIE M.LOVELY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN FOR R1-R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 6/11/2009, THE COURT ON 06/11/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 13827 of 2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.3330/92 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.859/92 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER LR NO.PR.5/PENSION A/1315/ E/99-2000/1574 DATED 4/2/2000 FROM ACOUNTS GEN.TVM. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B5-334/2002 DATED 3/6/2002 OF DEO, KANJIRAPPALLY ASKING PROPOSAL FORMS FROM THE PETITIONER AND ANOTHER TEACHER EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF FORM OF OPTION OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE DEO, KANJIRAPPALLY THROUGH THE HEADMASTER EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B2/7282/02 OF DEO, KANJIRAPPALLY REJECTING EXT.P5. PA TO JUDGE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR .J ------------------------------------------------- O.P.No.13827 of 2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th November,2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the beneficiary of Ext.P1 judgment, wherein he is the sixth petitioner. The petitioner retired as H.S.A on 31/3/2000. 2. In Ext.P1 the question considered was whether for getting benefits of Higher Grade as H.S.A the service rendered in the category of LPSA/UPSA/PD should also reckoned. This was found in favour of the petitioners and accordingly the State Government was directed to grant time bound promotion to the petitioners and disburse the monetary benefits as per the provisions contained in G.O.(P) 515/85/Fin. dated 16/9/1985 and G.O.(P) 480/89/Fin. dated 1/11/1989. 3. Writ Appeal filed against the judgment was dismissed as per Ext.P2 Judgment. Ext.P3 is the proceedings which shows the sanction of pension and others benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner forwarded the form of option for Senior Grade as per Ext.P5 which stands rejected by Ext.P6. The same is under challenge in this writ petition. O.P.No.13827 of 2003 2 4. In Ext.P6, the objection taken for the re-option submitted by the petitioner is that it is not in tune with Ext.P1 judgment as well as the Pay Revision orders for 1983 and 1988. 5. The learned Government Pleader on getting written instruction submitted that petitioner has completed 21 years of service on 12/7/1985 counting the services of UPSA and H.S.A. Higher grade was also sanctioned to him on 1/7/1986. Counting the total service of UPSA and H.S.A. the senior grade fell due on 12/7/1985. It is pointed out that the petitioners in Ext.P1 except for the petitioner herein had submitted the grade proposal and option in time and they were sanctioned the grade promotion and salary arrears were disbursed to them also. Counting the total service of U.P.S.A and H.S.A, the senior grade fell due on 12/7/1985. But the petitioner submitted re-option in terms of Ext.P1 judgment on 1/7/1988 which fell due on 12/7/1985 in the revised scale of pay of 1985 Pay Revision. 6. In the light of the above position the objection taken in Ext.P6 cannot be said to be wrong. The petitioner is entitled for benefits in tune with Ext.P1 judgment. It is clear that the option O.P.No.13827 of 2003 3 given by him as per Ext.P5 is not in tune with the same. Therefore objection taken by the DEO as per Ext.P6 has to be rectified by a fresh proposal. 7. Hence if the petitioner submits a fresh option in terms of the direction issued by this court in Ext.P1 the same will be accepted and orders shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of option statement from the petitioner. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE ssn