Petitioner police constable approached Kerala High Court seeking directions to fix pay after submitting a re-option form. Court held that since re-option receipt was not established, claim lacked merit. Petition dismissed.
The writ petition for fixation of pay and monetary benefits based on re-option has been disposed of and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 OP.No. 9539 of 2003(I)
PETITIONER:
P.A.VARKEY S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 54 YEARS, P.C.2887, CONSTABLE, OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT (RESIDING AT PADAVETTIL HOUSE, P.O.POOVANCHIRA, PATTIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, ADVOCATE. MR.K.E.HAMZA, ADVOCATE. MR.E.S.ASHRAF, ADVOCATE. MR.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN, ADVOCATE.
RESPONDENTS:
BY MR. A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER.
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP.No. 9539/2003
A P P E N D I X
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXT. P1 | : | COPY OF G.O.(P) No.615/97/(138)/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD. 28.6.97. |
|---|---|---|
| EXT. P2 | : | COPY OF G.O.(P) No.352/96/(86)/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD. 11.4.96. |
| EXT. P3 | : | COPY OF G.O.(P) No.38/98/(152)/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD.5.1.98. |
| EXT. P4 | : | COPY OF G.O.(P) No.399/99/(178)/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD. 5.2.99. |
| EXT. P5 | : | COPY OF G.O.(Ms.) No.1333/99/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD. 30.4.99. |
| EXT. P6 | : | COPY OF G.O.(P) No.1503/99/(180)/FIN. OF GOVT. DTD.22.6.99. |
| EXT. P7 | : | COPY OF FORM OF OPTION OF PETITIONER DTD. 30.4.99. |
| EXT. P8 | : | COPY OF AUDIT OBJECTION OF PETITIONER DTD. 12.7.02. |
| EXT. P9 | : | COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.No.2293/02 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 25.9.02. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.
// True Copy //
P.A. to Judge.
smp
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
O.P. No.9539 OF 2003
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the denial of the benefit of re-option submitted by him as per Exhibit P7. He seeks for a direction to fix the pay and to grant consequential monetary benefits.
the representation filed by him. After considering the representation, Exhibit P8 order has been passed, which is under
O.P. No.9539/2003
2
challenge in this writ petition.
O.P. No.9539/2003
3
not a part of Exhibit P4, cannot be supported. But, there is another difficulty for the petitioner. In fact, this writ petition was allowed earlier by this Court by judgment dated 21.03.2003. Later, the respondents filed a review petition pointing out that the re-option submitted by the petitioner has not been received and the review petition was allowed as per order in R.P.No.383/2004. The writ petition was restored to file and the respondents in the writ petition were directed to file counter affidavit. Accordingly, they have filed a counter affidavit in the matter. With regard to the receipt of Exhibit P7, it is stated in various paragraphs that the same has not been received either in the Ollur Police Station or in the Head of Office. It is specifically averred in paragraph 5 that the records available in the Ollur Police Station revealed that the petitioner has not submitted a valid re-option. No reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner disputing the same.
O.P. No.9539/2003
4
other aspects pointed out by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Exhibit P8 will show that the reoption was duly submitted. The said order is passed on a representation filed by the petitioner and therefore it will not help the petitioner. If a re-option was submitted in terms of Exhibit P4 and within the time allowed, then only the authorities could have acted upon it.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE
smp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of re-option despite the authorities averring non-receipt of the re-option form.
Whether the Government Order authorizing re-option mandated a specific time-bound higher grade window.
Whether the petitioner's claim for fixation of pay and consequential monetary benefits acquires merit.
P.A. Varkey
The State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government
The Accountant General (A&E) Kerala
The Superintendent of Police, Thrissur
T.R. Ramachandrana Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
