IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33812 of 2006(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.C.RAVEENDRAN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, HIGH SCHOOL KERALASSERI, KERALASSERI-678 641, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PALAKKAD. 2. DIRECTOR, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE (PRU) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 4.1.2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 33812/06. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE OPTION EXERCISED ON 28.2.94. P2. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION. P3. COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION. P4. COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DETAILS OF FIXATION OF PAY. P5. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.9.6.94. P6. COPY OF THE FORM OF REOPTION. P7. COPY OF THE OPTION UNDER 1992 PAY REVISION. P8. COPY OF THE SERVICE BOOK EXTRACT. P9. COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION. P10. COPY OF THE EXPLANATION BEFORE R1 DTD.21.4.06. P11. COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE GOVT. DTD.1.1.05. P12. COPY OF THE ORDER BY R1 DTD.22.11.06. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ====================== W.P.(C).No.33812 of 2006 ====================== Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition is a High School Assistant. 1992 pay revision with effect from 1.3.1992 became applicable to him. He was eligible for next higher grade on 7.2.1992. He originally opted for 1.7.1992, which is the next date of increment due to him, for the purpose of pay revision. He opted the very same date for the purpose of grade promotion also. Pay for both were fixed accordingly. Later, according to the Government orders applicable, he submitted re-opton to come over to the new scale with effect from 1.7.1993. Re-option was also accepted and pay fixed accordingly. Later on, by Ext.P9 audit objection, re- option was directed to be cancelled and pay was directed to be fixed in accordance with the original option directing recovery of the excess amounts drawn by the petitioner. Petitioner's appeal was rejected by Ext.P11 and consequently, by Ext.P12, the said Government decision was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner now challenges Exts. P9, P11 and P12. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the impugned orders are illegal in so far as the petitioner could re-opt any date subsequent to the implementation of the pay revision, provided the re-option is within the time stipulated in the Government w.p.c.33812/06 2 orders. According to the petitioner, since he has submitted re- option within the time stipulated, the same is perfectly in order and is not liable to be cancelled. 3. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submits that as per the rules of exercise of option pursuant to pay revision, the petitioner can opt only for the date in between coming into force of the pay revision order and the date on which he ceases to draw pay in that scale. Since the petitioner's next increment date fell on 1.7.1992 and the petitioner's next higher grade became due on 7.2.1992, he could have continued in the original scale only till his next increment date viz., 1.7.1992. Therefore, according to the Government Pleader, re-option with effect from 1.7.1992 is patently against the rules of pay revision and therefore, the impugned orders are perfectly valid and proper. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Rules regarding exercise of option are contained in Annexure III to G.O(P).No.600/93/Fin. dated 25.9.1993. Regarding rules for fixation of pay, clause 8(a) thereof reads thus: w.p.c.33812/06 3 “8. Exercise of option. (a) A government servant may elect to continue to draw pay in the existing scale until the date on which he earns his next increment or until he vacates his post or ceases to draw pay in that scale or until such date as the employee considers necessary. Provided that the option to retain the existing scale under the proviso to this rule shall be admissible only in respect of one existing scale. In cases of subsequent reversions only, the employees will be allowed to exercise option in r/o the lowest post also. Such option will be exercised within a period of 3 months from the date of order of reversion. The aforesaid option shall not be admissible to any person appointed to a post on or after the 1st day of March 1992, whether for the first time in Government service, or by transfer or promotion from another post and he shall be allowed pay in the new post, only in the revised scale.” (Underlining supplied) Going by the above, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner could have validly exercised re-option only till the date when higher grade became due to him on 7.2.1992 or next increment date which is 1.7.1992 because he would draw pay in the scale only till one of those dates. Therefore, the original option of 1.7.1992 is the correct option. That being so, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE w.p.c.33812/06 4