P. Savithri, H.S.A. vs State of Kerala, The Accountant General (A and E), The Deputy Director of Education and The District Educational Officer

P.S. Gopinathan, J.—The appellant is the petitioner in WP(C). No. 122/2004. The appellant, retired as a High School Assistant on 31.3.2005, entered the State service in Education Department as Upper Primary School Assistant on 15.11.1972. Thereafter she was promoted as High School Assistant in 1994 as averred in the writ petition. In the appeal memorandum it is stated that the promotion was in the year 1974. The appellant opted 1992 pay revision with effect from 1.7.1990 in pursuance of GO(P) No. 380/94/Fin. dated 9.6.1994. Thereafter she filed a re-option on 28.7.1994 to continue in the pre- revised scale till 30.6.1995 and to come over to the revised scale with effect from 1.7.1995. The department accepted the same. But, the audit party objected the re-option stating that the re-option had to be confined to a date within three months of the date of re-option. While steps were in progress to re-fix the salary in the light of the audit objection, the appellant moved the above writ petition. By the impugned judgment dated 15.3.2010 the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Now, this appeal.

We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Smt. T.B. Remani, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would rely upon Annexures A-2, A-3 and A-4 judgments of this Court wherein re-option was allowed by this Court. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondents, we find that Annexures A-2, A-3 and A-4 judgments would no way help the appellant as it pertain to a different set of facts. It appears that the appellant opted 1.7.1995 to switch over to the pre- revised pay taking note that she would get a higher grade on 1.4.1995 on completing 20 years of service and such option would enable the appellant to have a jump up in the salary. It is not disputed that the 1992 pay revision was implemented with effect from 1.7.1993. The appellant can opt to come over to the revised pay scale only in the cadre in which she was working as on the date of commencement of the pay revision. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, the appellant had to opt a date within three months from the date of re-option. If so, she cannot choose to 1.7.1995. The appellant didn''t point out any provision to opt any date as she chooses. Adding to the above, any promotion, either by grade or category subsequent to the pay revision, shall be on the revised scale of pay and not on a pre-revised scale of pay. In the above circumstance, we find no merits in the appeal. The objection raised by the audit party is perfectly correct.

The writ petition as well as the writ appeal are devoid of merits. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.