IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36919 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.S.SURESH BABU, AGE 37 S/O. SRIDHARA KURUP, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) MOONIYUR HIGH SCHOOL, MUNNIYUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SMT. NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 36919 of 2010-L - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P6 representation filed by the petitioner seeking for an opportunity for submitting revised option. The present difficulties experienced by the petitioner with regard to the submission of reoption occurred mainly because of a mistake in the date of option submitted by him. Pursuant to the pay revision order of the year 2006 as per G.O.(P) No.145/06/Fin. Dated 25.3.2006 the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 option statement wherein the date chosen is 1.3.2005. The petitioner actually completed four years of service only on 6.3.2005. 2. In the audit report an irregularity occurred thus, was found out and now the petitioner is confronted with the revision of pay as well as direction to refund. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 representation in the light of the fact that the Deputy Director of Education was not willing to consider the demand of the petitioner to submit a revised option, by correcting the date as 6.3.2005. 3. The petitioner is placing reliance upon the principles stated by this wpc 36919/2010 2 Court in Ext.P7 judgment which according to the petitioner, is helpful to him also. 4. There will be a direction to the competent authority among respondents 3 and 4, to take a decision on Ext.P6 representation within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, recovery, if any, against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance. The petitioner will forward a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition to the third respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/