IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23890 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. R.SUKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI, GAYATHRI BHAVAN, ELAKOLLOOR P.O., KONNI-689 703, (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (RETD), ARANMULA). 2. P.N.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.NANU PANICKER, PANACKAL PADINJATTATHIL HOUSE, ULLANNOOR P.O., KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (RETD), PAMBA). 3. T.N.VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.T.R.NANU PILLAI, BINU BHAVAN, KAIPUZHA P.O., KULANADA-689 503, PATHANAMTHITTA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (RETD), PATHANAMTHITTA). BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHIFF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.23890 of 2010 (I) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners retired from service as Sub Inspectors of Police. In this writ petition, they challenge Ext.P5 order dated 20/04/2010 passed by the 1st respondent in pursuance to the directions contained in Ext.P4 judgment dated 09/06/2009 in W.A.No.1065/2006. 2. Grievance of the petitioners highlighted before the 1st respondent was that their juniors are getting higher pay and that therefore they should also be stepped up applying the principle equal pay for equal work. 3. However, a reading of Ext.P5 order shows that consequent on the pay revision when re-options were exercised, the petitioners did not exercise the re-option, whereas their juniors exercised re-option and got fixation of pay on that basis. It is therefore that their juniors happened to get higher pay. 4. In my view, if re-option was not exercised by the WP(C) No.23890/2010 -2- petitioners for reasons which are attributable to them and re-option was exercised by their juniors and they got the benefits thereof, seniors like the petitioners cannot complain that their juniors are getting higher pay. Therefore, in the light of above, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg