IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20305 of 2008(P)
1. M.ABDUL RAZAK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :11/08/2009
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.20305 OF 2008
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner who retired as Headmaster on 31.04.1995
has approached this Court challenging Exhibit P12 whereby the
Government rejected his representation regarding the notional
fixation of pay for various pay revisions. The petitioner
commenced his service on 07.02.1961 and was promoted as
Headmaster on 14.06.1965. The petitioner was not granted the
time bound higher grade since he was granted the scale of pay of
Headmaster. He was getting only two increments less than the
persons who are having the same service and lesser service than
that of the petitioner. In respect of such Headmasters, by
Exhibit P1, the Government permitted submission of re-option.
Accordingly, he submitted re-option which was objected as per
Exhibit P2. Thereafter, he approached the Government and the
Government passed Exhibit P3 order permitting him to submit re-
option in respect of pay revisions of the years 1973, 1978, 1983,
W.P.(C) No.20305/2008 2
1988 and 1992 with certain conditions. Mainly it is on condition
that the re-option will be allowed for the limited purpose of
pensionary claims only. Thereafter, re-option was submitted and
the pay was fixed as per Exhibit P4. Exhibit P5 shows that the
defects pointed out earlier were rectified. But, by Exhibit P6,
again audit objection was brought to his notice. The petitioner
submitted Exhibit P7 representation. He has produced
Exhibits P9 and P10 to show that subsequent objections have
been dropped by the Accountant General. By Exhibit P12, his
representation stands rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is entitled for the benefit granted as per Exhibit P1
namely, paragraph 2(i). It is contended that the persons like the
petitioner who could not get the higher grade earlier are
benefited by paragraph 2(i) of Exhibit P1. In his case, by
Exhibit P3, the Government has passed a fresh order whereby
sanction has been granted to exercise re-option in respect of
various pay revisions between 1973 and 1992. The petitioner
had submitted his re-option only in accordance with Exhibit P3
W.P.(C) No.20305/2008 3
and therefore, the stand taken by the respondents are not
correct.
3. In Exhibit P6, the objection raised regarding re-option
submitted is that the petitioner could have exercised re-option
based on Exhibit P3 only for the scale of pay of HM in the pay
revisions from 1973 onwards and for HM Higher Grade. This is
the crux of the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
Exhibit P12 was passed without considering the effect of
Exhibit P1 and the fact that Exhibit P3 allows re-option to him in
terms of various pay revisions in the scale of pay of teacher.
Reliance is placed on Exhibit P14 option statement also. The
stand of the petitioner is opposed by the learned Government
Pleader relying upon the averments in the counter affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the
petitioner is not allowed the benefit based on the re-option, he
will get a lesser amount as pension and if an opportunity of
personal hearing is afforded, he will be able to satisfy the
Government that the stand taken in Exhibit P12 is not correct.
W.P.(C) No.20305/2008 4
The question will therefore be re-examined by the Government in
terms of Exhibits P1 and P3.
Therefore, Exhibit P12 is set aside. There will be a direction
to the Government to take a decision on Exhibit P7, with notice
to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of personal
hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp