IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35008 of 2010(A)
1. M.VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 45,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER,
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
5. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :01/12/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.35008 OF 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as a UPSA in an aided School with
effect from 23.7.1999. There was a dispute regarding her
approval, which was later granted with effect from 23.7.1999
itself by order dated 4.8.2007. In the meanwhile, the petitioner
exercised her option for revision of pay in accordance with 2004
pay revision order and she opted to come over to the revised
scale of pay with effect from 6.6.2005. The petitioner now
wants to change the date of option as 1.7.2004 instead of
6.6.2005. The petitioner’s request for the change of option date
has been rejected by Ext.P9 on the ground that the time limit
prescribed for re-option has already expired. The petitioner is
challenging Ext.P9 seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Call for the records leading to Ext P9 and
may be pleased to quash the same.
ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
commanding the respondents to accept the
reoption of the petitioner with the date 1/7/04 and
consequently to provide all the service benefits
emerging there from to the petitioner within such
time as may be fixed by this Hon’ble court.”
W.P.(C)No.35008/10 2
The petitioner’s contention is that, since the question of the
approval of the petitioner’s appointment was pending, the
petitioner cannot be faulted for not filing the re-option within
the prescribed time limit. I do not think that the petitioner’s
contention can be countenanced, in so far as the petitioner had
in fact exercised her option once for which the delay in
approval of appointment was not a bar. She puts forward the
delay in passing orders on approval as an excuse only for the
question of re-option. If the petitioner could file the original
option in time, nothing prevented her from filing the re-option
also within time. As such, the petitioner’s contention that it is
because of delay in passing orders on her approval cannot be
countenanced now. Admittedly, the petitioner did not exercise
the re-option within the period prescribed for the same by the
Government. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to the re-
option prayed for.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
acd
W.P.(C)No.35008/10 3
W.P.(C)No.35008/10 4