IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9193 of 2008(T)
1. THRESIAMMA GEORGE, HEADMISTRESS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :30/10/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.9193/2008-T
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein is working as a Headmistress in the G.L.P.
School, Kanthapuram in Kozhikode District. She entered service on
11/07/1980 in an aided school. She joined the Government service as P.D
Teacher with effect from 16/02/1983. She was promoted as Headmistress
with effect from 01/06/2007.
2. Ext.P1 is the form of option submitted by the petitioner dated
20/01/1999, in respect of the pay revision order, G.O.(P).No.3000/98/Fin.,
dated 25/11/1998. The petitioner opted the date 01/03/1997, as the date of
effect of 1997 pay revision. The same was accepted and the pay was refixed
and she was granted all the benefits attached to the revised scale of pay. By
Ext.P2, an audit objection relating to the pay fixation was communicated to
the petitioner by the third respondent in the year 2008. Ext.P3 is the copy of
the audit report. The petitioner submitted a detailed objection to the same.
3. Petitioner submits that there is a long delay of more than eight
years for raising objection. The petitioner is also relying upon Ext.P4 G.O.
(P).No.365/05/(150) Fin, dated 06/08/2005 to contend for the position that
W.P.(C). No.9193/2008
-:2:-
the teachers who were covered by the said order were permitted to file fresh
option also. Reliance is placed further on Ext.P5 Judgment in W.P.(C).
No.27860/2007 dated 27/09/2007.
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit justifying the
objections now raised. In paragraph (7) it is stated that the chance of re-
option submitted by the Government in Ext.P4 G.O.(P).No.365/05/(150)
Fin, dated 06/08/2005 was not utilised by the petitioner.
5. In similar circumstances, in Ext.P5, this Court considered the
question whether once options are accepted and audit objections are raised
after a long lapse of time, the teachers are entitled to make fresh option. The
petitioners therein were allowed to submit fresh options and the Educational
Officer was directed to refix the pay in the revised scale of pay in
accordance with the options submitted. It was held thus in paragraph (3) of
Ext.P5 Judgment.
“3. The learned Government Pleader would
submit that such an option would amount to re-option
which is not permissible under law. I am of the opinion
that this cannot be regarded as a re-option at all since the
petitioners’ options have already been accepted which
W.P.(C). No.9193/2008
-:3:-was sought to be annulled now on the basis of an audit
objection. When an option accepted is sought to be
cancelled, certainly the petitioners are entitled to be
given a chance to make the correct options, which cannot
be termed as re-option at all. Therefore, I direct that the
petitioners shall be given a chance to make the correct
options without taking into account their aided school
service. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of
with the following directions:
The petitioners shall forward their correct options
without taking into account the aided school service, to
the 2nd respondent. On receipt of the above, the AEO
shall refix the pay in the revised scale of pay in
accordance with their options and pass appropriate
orders thereon with consequential benefits. The
petitioners shall forward options within two weeks from
today and the AEO shall pass orders on the same within
a period of one month thereafter. The other question as
to whether the petitioners are entitled to tag on their
W.P.(C). No.9193/2008
-:4:-aided school service for the purpose of service benefits is
left open to be agitated appropriately. However, I note
the contention of the learned Government Pleader that
that question is covered by the Division Bench decision
in W.A.No.288/2005 which contention would be
available to the respondents, if and when the petitioners
raise that issues.”
Therefore, when an option accepted is sought to be cancelled, certainly, the
person is entitled to be given a chance to make a correct option, which
cannot be termed as re-option at all.
6. I respectfully agree to the above view and therefore, the
petitioner is also entitled for a similar direction. Petitioner could not avail
of the benefit of Ext.P4 as at that point of time there was no objection
against fixation of pay.
7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions. The petitioner will file a correct option within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment before the third
respondent and on receipt of the same, the third respondent shall refix the
pay in the revised scale of pay in accordance with the option thus submitted.
W.P.(C). No.9193/2008
-:5:-
Depending upon the acceptance of the same appropriate orders shall be
passed with regard to the consequential benefits also.
8. The interim order passed by this Court on 18/03/2008 will
continue to be in force till appropriate orders are passed. The orders as
above will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of the copy of the option.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms