Loading...
Responsive image

Ramachandran V.K. vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 3 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Ramachandran V.K. vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 3 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19455 of 2009(B)


1. RAMACHANDRAN V.K., 'SMRITHI',
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(AUDIT),

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :03/11/2009

 O R D E R
                      T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      W.P.(C) No.19455 of 2009-B
                   - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009.

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order by which the first

respondent refused to act upon the re-option submitted by the petitioner in

terms of Ext.P1 judgment. The reason stated is that going by Rule 16 of

Annexure 2 to G.O.(P) No.145/06/Fin. dated 25.3.2006, re-option will not

be allowed for any pay revision (including the present pay revision) except

in cases involving retrospective revision or change in scale of pay that takes

effect on a date prior to the date of option exercised by the employee for the

concerned pay revision.

2. The circumstances under which the petitioner approached this

court by filing this writ petition are the following: The petitioner had

approached this court earlier in W.P.(C) No.20844/2006. There was an

audit objection in the matter of fixation of pay while he was working as a

High School Assistant. Before being appointed as a High School Assistant,

the petitioner had rendered service as an aided school teacher also He

opted for the 1997 pay revision with effect from 1.7.1997. He was granted

weightage counting 18 years service including the aided school service.

wpc 19455/2009 2

The petitioner challenged the audit objection in W.P.(C) No.20844/2006.

When the writ petition came up for final hearing, the petitioner withdrew

the challenge against the recovery of overdrawn salary. As per the final

judgment, this court permitted the petitioner to file a re-option to the pay

revision of 1997. Ext.P1 is the copy of the said judgment. Therein, this

court passed the following order:

“If the petitioner submits a re-option within two weeks from today

along with a certified copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall

consider the same and re-fix the salary in accordance with that

option, if that option is otherwise in order.”

3. Ext.P2 is the copy of the audit objection forwarded to the school.

It is clear from Ext.P2 that objection is raised in respect of the pay

revision of the year 1997. He opted for 1997 pay revision with effect from

1.7.1997. Apart from that, Ext.P3 is the Government Order by which

permission has been granted for exercising re-option by employees in

certain cases which to be exercised before 31.10.2005. The petitioner

could not avail the benefit of Ext.P3 because of the delay in communication

of the audit objection. It is in these circumstances, he could not submit a re-

option in terms of Ext.P3 Govt. Order. After Ext.P1 judgment, the

petitioner submitted a re-option on 14.8.2008 as per Ext.P6. Without

wpc 19455/2009 3

correctly appreciating the fact that Ext.P1 judgment permitted re-option to

be submitted, in respect of 1997 pay revision, the request was rejected as

per Ext.P5 treating it as a re-option in respect of the pay revision ordered as

per G.O.(P) No.145/06 dated 25.3.2006. Even though the petitioner

submitted Ext.P6 to reconsider the same, it stands rejected as per Ext.P7.

4. It is clear from the facts pointed out by the petitioner that the re-

option submitted by the petitioner in terms of the directions issued in

Ext.P1 judgment is in respect of the 1997 pay revision, because he was

aggrieved by Ext.P2 audit objection which related to the 1997 pay revision.

He was ordered to refund an amount of Rs.25,117/- as per Ext.P2 itself.

Therefore, it was a wrong on the part of the Government to treat the same as

one covered under the Pay Revision Order dated 25.3.2006. Therefore, the

view taken in Exts.P5 and P7 cannot be sustained. The event which

necessitated the re-option, had well taken place before issuance of G.O.(P)

No.145/06 dated 25.3.2006. Therefore, the re-option submitted by the

petitioner ought to have been acted upon and the Government went wrong

in applying the relevant rules contained in the Govt. Order dated 25.3.2006

for considering the reoption submitted by the petitioner, in respect of 1997

pay revision. The direction issued in Ext.P1 judgment is binding on the

respondents.

wpc 19455/2009 4

5. A similar issue was considered by this Court in

O.P.No.14736/2000. Therein, the matter considered was in respect of the

1992 pay revision. After the fixation of the pay scale in terms of the re-

option submitted, audit objection was raised in the year 1999. The

petitioner thereafter submitted a re-option statement. It was disallowed

stating that as per G.O.(P) No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998 it was a

belated request. While considering the said issue, it was held thus in

paragraph 5:

“………In my view, the counsel for the petitioner is well founded in

his submission that the petitioner’s request for re-option made on

15.3.1999 cannot be disallowed on the basis of G.O.(P)

No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998 since the re-option exercised was

not in relation to 1997 pay revision, but in relation to 1992 pay

revision. It is evident from the facts of this case that the event

which necessitated the re-option had well taken place prior to Govt.

Order dated 25.11.1998 and the right of the petitioner for re-option

should be considered in the light of the orders issued in Ext.P4.

The petitioner cannot be made to lose the right for re-option

because the audit objections, in fact, were raised on 1.3.1999, after

the issuance of G.O.(P) No.3000/98/Fin. dated 25.11.1998.

Otherwise, it will be clear discrimination amounting to arbitrariness

and illegality. In my view, the petitioner’s request has to be dealt

with under Ext.P4 G.O. Here, it is not the date of the request for

wpc 19455/2009 5

reoption that matters, but the reasons which necessitated the

exercise of reoption, namely, whether it pertains to pre 1997

revision or post 1997 revision.”

In the above view of the matter also, I find that Exts.P5 and P7 cannot be

sustained.

5. Therefore, Exts.P5 and P7 are quashed. There will be a direction

to the Government to reconsider the matter, and in terms of Ext.P1

judgment, the reoption submitted by the petitioner will be accepted and the

salary will be refixed in accordance with the re-option. Appropriate orders

will be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information