IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 16425 of 2011(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.USHA,AGED 42,W/O.SOMAN,UPSA,NM HSS THIRUNAVAYA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PAULSON THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,PIN 695 001. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MALAPPURAM 688 001. 3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR - 688 035. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16425/2011 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION DTD. 31/07/2006 AS SANCTIONED BY THE DEO. P2: COPY OF OBJECTION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 2/05/2010. P4: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) 572/2007 DTD. 29/11/2007FOR RE-OPTION. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.36203/2010 DTD. 3/12/2010. P6: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) 145/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE KSS T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.16425 of 2011-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as U.P.S.A. in N.M. HSS, Thirunavaya. The initial appointment was as UPSA itself on 7.6.1993. Pursuant to the option submitted for fixation of pay as per the pay revision order of the year 2006, the pay was revised as evident from Ext.P1 statement of fixation. This was done with effect from 7.6.2005. An objection came against the fixation as per Ext.P2 from the Deputy Director of Education. The petitioner paid the excess amount of Rs.17,203/- which was the excess amount received from June 2005 to May 2010 and from June 2010 onwards one increment was reduced. The same resulted in the change of fixation date for 16 years grade. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation before the Government in the matter. Ext.P4 is the Government Order No.GO(P) 572/2007 dated 29.11.2007 allowing reoption to be submitted on or before 31.3.2008. But at that time the petitioner was enjoying the benefit under Exts.P1 and Ext.P2 objection came only in April, 2010. Therefore, the petitioner could not get the benefit of Ext.P4 Govt. Order. By Ext.P5 judgment this Court directed the Government to consider the request. But wpc 16425/2011 2 the same stands rejected by Ext.P6 communication which is under challenge in this writ petition. The reason stated in Ext.P6 is that the petitioner does not fulfill the conditions laid down in Rule 16 of Annexure 2 to G.O.(P) No.145/2006 dated 25.3.2006 permitting reoption for 2004 Pay Revision, as there is no change in the scale of pay prior to her option date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the objection to Ext.P1 came only in 2010 and the correction was done only thereafter. In that view of the matter, the petitioner will have to be given a chance to submit a revised option. The facility given under Ext.P4 was also allowed till 31.3.2008. As the objection came only thereafter, which is after the prescribed period, the petitioner could not get the benefit of the same also. 2. The third respondent has field a counter affidavit. The stand taken is that only on 1.7.2005 the petitioner is eligible for revised scale and till that date she was entitled only for pre-revised scale. It is also stated that as per Ext.P4 time was granted till 31.3.2008 to submit re-option. 3. This is a case where the proposal for fixation was found to be mistaken and the objection came only in 2010. If at the time of finalysing the fixation it was noticed, the same could have been corrected by the petitioner. Evidently, the petitioner could not get the benefit of Ext.P4 also, as the objection was not there as on the date of Ext.P4. wpc 16425/2011 3 4. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner can be said to be in fault for not submitting the representation Ext.P3 at the correct time. The permission sought for exercising reoption for 2004 pay revision with effect from 1.7.2005, alone will benefit her. This Court has been taking the view in various cases that once the option is accepted and later because of audit objection it has to be changed, then the person concerned should be given an opportunity to submit reoption in the matter. 5. For all these reasons, I allow this writ petition and Ext.P6 is quashed. There will be a direction to the District Educational Officer to accept the reoption submitted by the petitioner and to refix the pay scale accordingly. With regard to 16 years’ grade also, the petitioner has sought for a change. The same will also be considered and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/