IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 23957 of 2009(L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- E.K.JAMALUDHEEN, FULL TIME ARABIC TEACHER, OLAVILAM U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.OLAVILAM-673 313, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHOKLI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. HEADMASTER, OLAVILAM U.P.SCHOOL, P.O.OLAVILAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23957/2009 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION SANCTIONED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF GO(P) NO.3000/98 DTD. 25/11/1998. P2: COPY OF THE AUDIT OBJECTION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.78516/S2/08/GE DTD. 18/06/2009 DECLINING THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 10/11/2006 IN O.P.NO.5258/2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 17/07/2007 IN WPC.NO.20848/2003(F) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/06/2009 IN WPC.NO.19491/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P8: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.365/05/FIN. DTD. 6/08/2005. P9: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.5198/2008/G.EDN. DTD. 21/11/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 23957 of 2009-L - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is working as a Full Time Arabic Teacher in Olavilam U.P. School. He is aggrieved by Ext.P2 audit objection and the rejection of his explanation by Ext.P4. 2. The pay fixation was made as per Ext.P1 order in terms of the pay revision of the year 1997 which was ordered as per G.O.(P) No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998. His pay was accordingly revised and fixed at Rs.4,900/- and increments were also granted and on completion of 23 years of service, the petitioner was granted Selection Grade on 15.7.2002 in the scale of Rs.5000-8050. 3. An audit objection was raised after a lapse of 9 years and the pay was refixed at Rs.4,800/- in the scale of Rs.4500-7000. The objection raised is that the service reckoned as 19 years for weightage is irregular since the option exercised by the petitioner is on 1.7.1998 instead of 15.7.1998. 4. Even though the petitioner, by filing an explanation, sought for an opportunity to submit a reoption afresh, it was disallowed by Ext.P4 stating wpc 23957/2009 2 that G.O.(P) No.145/06/Fin. dated 25.3.2006 does not provide for any reoption. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the audit objection is raised after a number of years, viz. 9 years after the pay fixation, it is only proper that the petitioner is given an opportunity. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Exts.P5 to P9 judgments of this Court wherein, in similar circumstances, this Court allowed the petitioners therein to submit a reoption, since the audit objection was raised after a number of years. 5. This is a case where the pay fixation was made in terms of the pay revision order, after accepting the option submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, if the same is to be interfered with by the audit, the person concerned should be given an opportunity to submit a reoption/fresh option. The Government Order relied upon in Ext.P4 is of the year 2006 concerning a pay revision of the year 2006. That need not prevent the authorities from allowing an opportunity to the person concerned, since the petitioner is deprived of the benefit of the pay revision because of the audit objection now raised by the department concerned. The opportunity sought by the petitioner is justified, in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Exts.P5 to P9 judgments. 6. In that view of the matter, it is only proper that the petitioner is wpc 23957/2009 3 given an opportunity to submit a reoption. Therefore, Ext.P4 is quashed. The petitioner will submit a reoption before the third respondent within one month which will be accepted by the third respondent and the pay of the petitioner will be fixed accordingly. The monetary benefits also will be recomputed and eligible benefits will be granted to the petitioner within a further period of two months. Since the audit objection raised is in order, what remains to be done is to revise the pay of the petitioner in terms of the revised option to be submitted now. The excess amount, if any paid already, will be adjusted also. Therefore, recovery, if any, ordered will be kept in abeyance till orders are passed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/