IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 36 of 2007() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5472/2004 Dated 04/10/2006 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIOENR ---------------------------- A.EMILDA MARY, NURSING SUPERINTENDENT GRADE II, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPT. , SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 36 of 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair , J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. She is a Nursing Superintendent Grade II, working under the respondents. Her salary was fixed according to her option, when pay was revised pursuant to the pay revision orders of 1992 and 1997. Later, she found that a junior to her, working in the same cadre, was drawing higher pay. Thereupon, she filed a representation on 5.3.2003 seeking permission to exercise re-option for the 1992 and 1997 pay revisions. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus to the respondents to accept her re-option. The learned Single Judge took the view that re-option has to be exercised within the time frame permitted by the relevant Government Orders. Since the exercise of re-option was out of time, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 2. It is the admitted position that the appellant did not exercise the re-option within the prescribed time limit. But, she has an explanation for not exercising the re-option within the prescribed W.A. No. 36 of 2007 2 time limit. The administrative staff in her office did not inform her about the same in time. But, we think, it is a poor defence. If that defence is accepted, then every one in Government service could claim right to exercise re-option at any time. Since the appellant has failed to exercise the re-option in time, her representation was liable to be dismissed. But the learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the Government Order which says that the re-option can be permitted out of schedule, if so directed by the court or when retrospective promotions are ordered. We think the said Government Order does not have any application to the facts of this case. Therefore, we find the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ appeal is also dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vps W.A. No. 36 of 2007 3