IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 122 of 2005(M)
1. P.SAVITHRI, H.S.A.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),
3. THE DY.DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 122 of 2005
==================
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner entered the General Education Service of the
Government of Kerala, as UPSA on 15.11.1972. She was promoted as
H.S.A. in 1994. The petitioner became entitled to Senior Grade on
completion of 20 years, with effect from 1.4.1995. On 28.7.1994,
the petitioner submitted a re-option for coming over to the senior
grade with effect from 15.7.1995. Apparently, this re-option was
accepted and pay was fixed on the basis of that option. Later on, the
audit party found out that the petitioner could not have filed any re-
option on 28.7.1994 in respect of her senior grade, which fell due only
on 1.4.1995. Therefore, Ext.P3 audit objection was raised, which reads
thus:
“XLIX. Smt.P.Savithri, H.S.A (SKT), Government. H.S.Erumapeety.
The pay of the teacher in 1992 pay Revision was fixed at Rs.2000
from 1.7.93 in the scale of Rs.1520-2660 and subsequent increment
were granted as shown below;
Increment on 1.7.94 Rs. 2050 10 1.7.95 2100 20
She had exercised re-option on 28.7.94 for senior Grade from
1.7.95 in the pre-revision scale of Rs.1330-2555 and for 1992 pay
Revision from the same date. She had refunded Rs.4776 on 21.10.99
towards excess salary drawn from 1.7.93 – 30.6.94.
The repotion was accepted and the fixation of pay was modified
with monetary benefit from 1.7.95 as shown below.
w.p.c.122/05 2
Rs.
20 year Grade from 1.7.95 in the
scale of Rs.1330-2555 2150
1992 Pay Revision from 1.7.95.
in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 2360
The teacher was eligible for filing option/re-option to the grades
within 3 months from the date of its accrual. As the grade in this case
was due only from 31.3.95, there was no provision to opt/reopt the grade
on 28.7.94. So the sanction of the grade based on the reoption was not
in order.
The details of the pay due, pay allowed etc. were as follows:
Pay due Pay allowed
Pay as on 1.7.95 in the scale
of Rs.1640-2900 2180 2360
Increment on 1.7.96 2240 2420
1.7.97 2300 2480
40
1997 Pay Revision from 1.7.97
in the scale of Rs.5500-9075 6800 7500
increment on 1.7.98 6975 7675
1.7.99 7150 7850
The case may be reviewed and its result intimated.”
The petitioner is challenging the same.
2. According to the petitioner, although the petitioner
submitted a re-option on 28.7.1994, her pay in the senior scale was
fixed only with effect from 1.7.1995 and therefore, there is nothing
illegal in the re-option having been accepted. The petitioner, therefore,
seeks the following reliefs:
“a) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P3 objection
or in the alternative to declare the same as illegal and
unenforceable.
b) To issue a writ order or direction declaring that the P1 notice and
the consequent re-fixation of pay as in Ext.P2 are proper and validw.p.c.122/05 3
and that the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits following out
of the same.”
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that nobody can
submit an option or re-option for 20 year higher grade which fell due
on 1.4.1995 on any date prior to 1.4.1995. Here, the petitioner has
submitted a re-option for coming over to the senior grade scale on
28.7.1994, which could not have been accepted at all, is his
submission. Therefore, according to him, the audit objection is
certainly valid and proper.
4. I have considered the rival contentions the parties.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled to 20 year senior
grade only with effect from 1.4.1995. Therefore, she could not have
exercised option, (if at all that option was permissible at all, which
itself is doubtful, since option is prescribed only for pay revision and
not higher grade) that could have been only on 1.4.1995 or thereafter.
Here, admittedly the petitioner submitted her re-option on 28.7.1994,
nine months’ prior to the petitioner becoming eligible for 20 year
higher grade. The same is clearly not permissible. Therefore, there is
nothing wrong in the audit objection. Consequently the writ petition
lacks merits and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
w.p.c.122/05 4