IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31597 of 2006(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. T. ANNIE, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. P.C. FRANCIS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KUTTANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PUTHENPARAMBU, PULINKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. G. DRONER, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. K.GANGADHARAN, WORKING AS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, (VALUATION OFFICER), PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,KARUNAGAPPALLY, RESIDING AT VARADHA, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER, SMT.JEENA JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION, KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHERTHALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31597 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 4th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed by the first respondent. The issue pertains to reaping the fruits of Ext.P1 judgment passed by this court. The Government took a stand that the parties require re-option for the purpose of giving effect to the judgment. Accordingly, when steps were taken for re-option, the same was turned down as per Ext.P6 on the ground that re-option is not permissible and re-option is permissible only in the case of retrospective promotion. It is to be noted that re- option has become absolutely necessary in this case for reaping the fruits of Ext.P1 judgment. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the Government in Ext.P6 is absolutely unjustified. Had the petitioners been given the benefit of their service at the appropriate time, they would have opted for the pay revision at the relevant time. This was necessitated only because the benefit of the past service was given to them only subsequently, pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed with a direction to the first respondent to permit the petitioners to re-opt WP NO.31597/06 2 for the purpose of giving effect to Ext.P1 judgment. This shall be done within two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31597 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 4th July, 2008.