IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19491 of 2005(U)
1. K.P.KAMALA, L.P.S.A. CHEMBAD PODIKALAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, ACCOUNTANT
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
5. HEADMASTER, CHEMBAD PODIKALAM L.P.SCHOOL
For Petitioner :SRI.POOVAMULLE PAMBIL ABDUL KAREEM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :24/06/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 19491 of 2005-U
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has already retired from service on 31.3.2009. This
writ petition has been filed, prior to her retirement, under the following
circumstances. She entered service as a qualified teacher on 22.3.1982.
After 10 years, she was granted the first higher grade on 22.3.1992. By
Ext.P1, the petitioner had opted to the pay revision of 1997 with effect from
1.3.1997. That was accepted by the competent authority and consequently
her pay was fixed and revised in the scale of Rs.4500 – 7000. Increments
for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 were also sanctioned
respectively. On completion of 18 years of service, she was also granted
Senior Grade in the scale of Rs.5000 – 8150.
2. By Ext.P2, an objection was raised regarding the fixation of pay,
by the Deputy Director of Education stating that the reckoning of 15 years
weightage is irregular and that refixation was not properly done. The salary
was revised accordingly. By Ext.P2(a), she was directed to refund the
amounts also. It is at that stage this writ petition was filed and this court
had granted an interim order of stay of further recovery in the matter.
wpc 19491/2005 2
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, by Ext.P3 dated 6.8.2005
the Government permitted a chance for re-option to State Government
employees and staff of aided schools and colleges in respect of the 1997
pay revision in cases involving retrospective reduction in the revised pay
consequent on audit scrutiny. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted re-
option as per Ext.P4 and the excess amount was also refunded. Ext.P4(a) is
the statement of fixation. Thereafter, by Ext.P6 it was informed by the
Deputy Director of Education that the same cannot be accepted, as the
monetary benefits will be available only from the date on which the reoption
was submitted. This is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit justifying the
action. The issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of a
Division Bench of this court in State of Kerala v. Lissy Joseph (2005 (4)
KLT SN page 70, Case No.97). It was held by this court that arrears
consequent on re-option of higher grades are admissible from the date of
effect of re-option and not from the date of filing of re-option. It was held
thus:
“The only dispute to be resolved in these appeals is whether
arrears consequent on reoption of higher grades are admissible from
the date of effect of re-option or from the date of filing of re-option.
wpc 19491/2005 3
It is now clear that what is intended is the date of effect of re-option
and not the date of actual exercise of re-option. Excess of amount
due after calculating the same from the date of effect of reoption can
be entitled to set off against the refunds due from the employee and
the amount due, if any, arising after the date of re-option alone need
be refunded to the Government.”
5. In the light of the above, the reasons shown in Ext.P6 cannot be
sustained. Therefore, the Ext.P2 series and Ext.P6 quashed. There will be a
direction to the third respondent to accept the re-option submitted by the
petitioner as per Ext.P4 and sanction the refixation of pay along with
consequential benefits. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/