IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35806 of 2004(K)
1. K.RAJAN NAIR, `ROHINI', S.N.PURAM,
... Petitioner
2. A.R.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR,
3. P.SASIDHARAN, `VIJITHRA',
4. P.PRABALAN, `CHITHRALEKHA',
5. R.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI,
6. K.P.BHASKARAN NAIR, `ARUNIMA',
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND
For Petitioner :SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 35806 OF 2004
--------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners entered service as IInd Grade Surveyors. They
were promoted to the post of Head Surveyors on various dates.
Petitioners 1 to 6 were further promoted to the post of
Superintendent and all the petitioners retired from service
subsequently.
2. A revised gradation list was prepared on 12.10.1989.
Based on the revised gradation list, some of the petitioners were
ordered to be reverted. O.P. Nos.8846 of 1989 was filed by
petitioners 1 to 3, O.P.No.9979 of 1989 was filed by petitioners 4 &
5 and O.P.No.2407 of 1992 was filed by the sixth petitioner.
3. By Ext.P1 common judgment, the original petitions were
allowed with costs. Ext.P5 is the one of the consequential order
issued stating that the incumbent promoted notionally are entitled to
all monetary benefits with retrospective effect. Thereafter when the
petitioners exercised re-option in the respective cadre , re-option
was allowed by Ext.P7 order. However the acceptance for re-option
for the subsequent pay revisions after their retrospective promotion
WPC No.35806/04
2
was subjected to the conditions that the benefit of re-option will be
limited to pensionary claims and that neither excess need be
refunded nor arrears will be paid. Representations made by the
petitioners against the aforesaid conditions were rejected by Exts.P8,
P9 and P10. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed.
4. The reason stated in Exts.P8 to P10 is that in all cases of
re-option permitted to serving employees, arrears of pay are
admissible only from the date of filing the re-option and that in case
of retired persons re-option, if permitted, will only be for pensionary
claims and they are not eligible for arrears of pay consequent to re-
option.
5. In my view, this reason is not appealing in the facts of
this case. This is for the reason that petitioners could exercise re-
option only after they secured Ext.P1 judgment and the
consequential orders issued. Therefore re-option was not possible
prior to their retirement. If that be so, the reason stated in Exts.P8 to
P10 for denying the benefits that in case of re-option exercised by
retired employees, benefit will be limited to pensionary claims only
and that arrears of pay will not be paid cannot be accepted.
WPC No.35806/04
3
Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition quashing the
condition Nos. 1 and 2 of Ext.P7 order and Exts.P8 to P10 and
directing that the petitioners be disbursed monetary benefits due to
them pursuant to the re-option exercised by them, without enforcing
the conditions imposed in Ext.P7 order. Consequent monetary
benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioners within a period of three
months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC
(JUDGE)
vps
WPC No.35806/04
4
WPC No.35806/04
5