IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 39391 of 2002(M) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.G.RAJALAKSHMI, 'ROHINI', KAVUMBHAGAM P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT), KERALA, BRANCH THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.T. MAHAMOOD THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 39391/2002. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 5-2-1999. EXT.P2 FORM OF OPTION DT. 22-1-1999. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 20-8-1999. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 25-9-2002. EXT.P5 RELEVANT PORTION OF AUDIT OBJECTION DT. 28-8-2002. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 17-6-1999. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 27-6-2000. EXT.P8 ORDER IN C.M.P.34633/2000 IN O.P.NO.20643/2000 DT. 21-7-2000. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 39391 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th March, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges audit objection and consequent recovery of excess amount drawn from the petitioner's salary on the ground that the option submitted by the petitioner taking into account the aided school service also for the purpose of weightage is not in order. The question as to whether aided school service also can be computed for the purpose of granting weightage in pay revision has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 288/2005 holding that the same cannot be counted for the purpose of weightage. That being so, the petitioner cannot validly challenge the orders in question. However, since the petitioner had exercised option at a time when the Division Bench decision had not yet come, and the time granted by the Government for exercising re-option has already expired, I feel that the respondents should grant the petitioner a chance of re-option so that the petitioner can minimise the amounts to be refunded by her. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of as follows. The petitioner shall, within three weeks from today, submit her re-option for coming over to the revised scale as per 1992 pay revision order. The 2nd respondent shall consider the same and fix petitioner's pay as per the pay revision order based on such re-option, if the re- option is in order otherwise. The Deputy Director shall pass orders in that regard within one month from the date of receipt of the re-option. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/