IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 18074 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.RAMAN KUTTY RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOZHIKKAL HOUSE CHEMMANIYODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT HOME (A) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SECRETARY, FINANCE, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.MOHAMMED FAZIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.18074 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of November, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who retired from service as Sub Inspector of Police on 28/02/2006, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order dated 12/11/2008 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the re-option exercised by him. 2. Facts of the case show that according to the petitioner, he failed to rightly exercise his option in 1992, 1997 & 2004, as a result of which he suffered monetary loss. It is stated that in view of this, he filed Ext.P1 representation requesting that he be permitted to exercise re-option. That was considered and rejected by Ext.P2 on the ground that re-option is permissible only in cases where retrospective revision of pay after option is exercised has been implemented. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in several similar cases re-option has been permitted, and is relying on Exts.P3 to P6. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. WP(C) No.18074/2009 -2- It is stated that under the Rules, re-option will not be allowed for any pay revision except in cases involving retrospective revision or change in the scale of pay that takes effect from a date prior to the date of option exercised by an employee. Even in such cases, arrears will be payable only with effect from the date of filing re- option, and that such re-option has to be exercised within three months from the date of issue of pay revision order. In this case, according to the respondents, there has not been any retrospective revision of pay entitling the petitioner to exercise re-option. 4. An employee can exercise re-option only if such a re- option is permissible in terms of the Rules and in cases involving retrospective revision or change in scale of pay that takes effect on a date prior to the date of option exercised by him for the concerned pay revision. In this case, the petitioner does not have such a case. On the other hand, he pleads that a bonafide mistake has occurred and therefore, he should be allowed to exercise re- option. In my view, the petitioner cannot claim any such vested right, and at any right, a Government servant cannot be allowed to exercise re-option at any time that suits him convenience. It has WP(C) No.18074/2009 -3- been so held by this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.1776/2005 dated 26/10/2007, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench by dismissing W.A.No.170/2008. 5. Then the only question is whether Exts.P3 to P6 will improve the case of the petitioner. Exts.P3 to P6 are the orders issued allowing re-option. A reading of these orders show that re- options were exercised on the basis of Government Orders mentioned therein, unlike in this case. If that be so, these orders will not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P2 rejecting re- option exercised by the petitioner. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg