IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37074 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MARY JOSE, W/O.JOSE, AGED 47 YEARS, ELEVATTUNKAL HOUSE, ANAKKALLU, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT NOW WORKING AS AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ERUMELY. BY ADV. SRI.PHM.BASHEER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 37074 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T While the petitioner working as Agricultural Officer, she was granted 10 year Time Bound Higher grade and her scale of pay was fixed at Rs.2350/- with effect from 2.2.1995. Pursuant to the Pay revision, by G.O(P) 300/98/Fin. Dated 25.11.1998, petitioner's salary was revised to the scale of Rs.7200-200-7800. According to the petitioner, her pay was fixed at Rs. 7,600/- as on 1.2.1999. But in the case of juniors to the petitioner, their pay was raised to Rs.7800/-as on 1.4.1999. Petitioner contends that this was taken up as an anomaly with the Accountant General who required the petitioner to move the Government, as evidenced by Exhibit P2. Apparently, the petitioner took up the matter before the Government by Exhibit P4 letter dated 25.4.2007. It seems that the Government intimated the Director that once an option is exercised for Time Bound Higher Grade, it is final and cannot be changed. Therefore the petitioner’s request for a change in the option was rejected. W.P ( C) No. 37074 of 2007 2 I heard the Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents also. Consequent upon the pay revision order vide G.O(P) 300/98/Fin. Dated 25.11.1998, there is no provision for exercise of re-option. The stand taken by the respondents in Exhibit P4 cannot be faulted with. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is therefore, dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 37074 of 2007 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007 (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 37074 of 2007 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 W.P ( C) No. 37074 of 2007 2 ORDER 25th May, 2007