High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2007-07-16Writ petition allowed; relief granted to the pe...

OP No. 10540 of 2001 (D)

Case / Petition Number:OP No. 10540 of 2001

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thottathil B. RadhaKrishnan
Judgment Date: 2007-07-16
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. Exhibits P13 to P16 are quashed. Petitioners are to be conferred the benefits of Exhibits P2 and P3 by permitting re-options to continue in the prerevised pay scale as sought, and to exercise re-options on the basis of the 1993 and 1997 pay revision orders. If exercised within three months from receipt of a copy of this judgment, the petitioners will be entitled to the higher grade scale as admissible; otherwise, the relief is subject to the decision of the apex court in State of Kerala and others v. Lissy Joseph M. The documents produced in the petition may guide the Government in determining the exact date of benefit, and to the extent necessary, the Government shall decide whether the option was exercised earlier. The judge’s direction is to implement the above within the permissible framework.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; relief granted to the petitioners by quashing the rejection orders and permitting re-options under pay revision orders; three-month window for exercise; date of benefits to be governed by the controlling decision in Lissy Joseph M.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T.M.GANGADHARAN
C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN
K.J.PAUL
M.R.BHASKARAN
C.R.ANTONY
K.D.JACOB
K.V.GOPALAN
E.K.SUKUMARAN
T.S.SIVARAMAN

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Finance Department
Superintendent of Police, Thrissur
The Superintendent of Police, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT.V.P.Seemandini
• Sri.M.J.Johnson

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.N.MANOJ KUMAR

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Original Petition arises from a group of police officers posted at various stations in Thrissur district who challenge the denial of enhanced emoluments under pay revision orders. The petitioners contend that, owing to postings and the nature of their duties, they could not exercise the statutory ‘options’ and ‘re-options’ within the prescribed time. They argue that those who timely exercised options/Schemes received better pay scales, creating a grave and disproportionate disparity in their drawals compared to similarly situated officers. The petition seeks restoration of eligibility under the prerevised pay scales and to exercise re-options under the 1993 and 1997 pay revision orders, citing Exhibits P2 and P3 as basis for relief. The court acknowledges that uniformed personnel face particular constraints and, departing from the ordinary rule of strict timeliness, adopts a lenient approach in their favour, permitting re-options and continuation in prerevised scales. It quashes certain rejection orders (P13-P16) and directs that relief be granted, allowing the petitioners to exercise re-options and to receive higher grade scales as admissible. The court notes the State’s obligations to consider pay revisions in light of a controlling decision of the apex court (Lissy Joseph M.), and leaves the precise dating of benefits to that decision, with documents filed serving as guidance for future determinations.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argue that due to postings across varied locations and concrete duties, they were unable to exercise the prescribed options for enhanced emoluments under pay revision schemes. They assert non-exercise caused grave prejudice and a stark disparity with peers who timely exercised re-options. They seek quashing of rejection orders (Exhibits P13-P16) and restoration of eligibility to adopt the 1993 and 1997 pay revision orders, enabling re-options in prerevised scales (per Exhibits P2, P3) and higher grade scales, with benefits potentially dating from the pay revision orders, as clarified by the apex court in State of Kerala v. Lissy Joseph M. The court is urged to grant relief and permit exercise of re-options within a defined timeframe (three months) to ensure equitable treatment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents insist on adherence to the government orders that require timely exercise of options. They issued rejection orders (Exhibits P13-P16) to some petitioners, reflecting a view that timely eligibility must be established under the prescribed procedures. They argue that any relief must be grounded in the pay revision framework and the Government’s powers to extend or restrict timelines, and that ultimate entitlement should be determined in accordance with the controlling precedent (Lissy Joseph M.) and the Government’s decisions. They contend the relief requested could unsettle established administrative practice unless circumscribed by the relevant orders.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala and others v. Lissy Joseph M.	2006(1) KLJ 566	Positive	The court explicitly relies on the apex court decision referenced as Lissy Joseph M. to govern the timing and entitlement of benefits and states that benefits would follow the decision in that case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OP No. 10540 of 2001 (D) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2007 / 25TH ASHADHA 1929 OP.No. 10540 of 2001(D) ------------------------------- PETITIONERS: - ------------------- 1. T.M.GANGADHARAN, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF P0LICE, OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. K.J.PAUL, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAVARATHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. M.R.BHASKARAN, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR, VARANTHARAPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. C.R.ANTONY, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. K.D.JACOB, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. K.V.GOPALAN, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 8. E.K.SUKUMARAN, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDIKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 9. T.S.SIVARAMAN, POLICE CONSTABLE, VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI SRI.M.J.JOHNSON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.10540 of 2001 ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.615/(138)/97 FIN. DT.28.6.1997. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF G.O.(P).NO.399/(178)/99 FIN. DT.5.2.1999. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF G.O.(P)NO.312/2000/(58)/FIN. DT.10.2.2000. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.1.8.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.27.8.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND petitioner BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.7.8.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.8.8.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.30.8.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.5.10.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. APRIL, 2000 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH petitioner TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.8.1.2001 SUIBMITTED BY THE 8TH petitioner TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.15.12.1998 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH petitioner BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13: COPY OF REJECTION ORDER DT.30.5.2000 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P14: COPY OF REJECTION ORDER DT.17.4.2000 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPODNENT TO THE THIRD petitioner. EXHIBIT P15: COPY OF REJECTION ORDER DT.17.4.2000 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P16: COPY OF REJECTION ORDER DT.27.11.2000 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH petitioner. EXHIBIT P17: COPY OF D.O. LETTER NO.1114/99/R DT.20.12.99 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P18: COPY OF D.O.1406/2000/R. DT.30.12.2000 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P19: COPY OF FIRST PAGE OF SERVICE BOOK OF MR.E.G.KARUNAKARAN. EXHIBIT P20: COPY OF PAY SLIP OF MR.E.G.KARUNAKARAN FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2000. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------O.P.NO.10540 of 2001** ## **-----------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 16[th] day of July, 2007** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners, who are policemen and were posted in different places, apparently could not exercise due options in terms of the relevant government orders for getting better emoluments on the basis of the pay revision orders and obtaining decisions of the Government. Under the normal circumstances, a Government employee is expected to exercise options and re-option as are provided, within the time limit, which may be extended by the Government under considerations of due and relevant factors. But, so far as uniformed personnel are concerned, particularly when their nature of duties and responsibilities, obviously, keep them away and without proper opportunity to get appropriate information and knowledge regarding their entitlement to better emoluments, I deem it proper to take a lenient view in their favour and let them have an opportunity to exercise their options and re-options as claimed by them, particularly when it is shown that non-exercise of options and re-options in time has resulted in grave prejudice and grossly disproportionate disparity in the drawals when compared to _**OP.10540/01**_ 2 similarly situated persons who had exercised their options and reoptions within the prescribed time. It is not as if a government servant had not properly applied in proper form for his due entitlements which would turn round to deprive him of such emoluments. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed quashing Exhibits P13 to P16 and it is directed that the petitioners shall be conferred the benefit of Exhibits P2 and P3 orders by permitting them to exercise their re-options to continue in the prerevised scale of pay as sought for by them. They would also be permitted to exercise re-options on the basis of the 1993 and 1997 pay revision orders. If the petitioners exercise such re-options as aforesaid within the outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, they will be entitled to higher grade scale as admissible and if otherwise in order. The question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit from the date of the pay revision orders or from the date of actual exercise of reoptions is left open to be governed by the decision of the apex court reported in _**State of Kerala and others v. Lissy Joseph M.**_ (2006(1) KLJ 566). If there is no such proceedings as of now, the benefits would be released. If ultimately it requires necessary for the _**OP.10540/01**_ 3 Government to decide as to whether the option was exercised at the earlier point of time, the documents produced by the petitioners in this Writ petition shall be treated as guidance for arriving at such a decision. **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** vgs. _**OP.10540/01**_ 4 ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.** **-----------------------------O.P.NO.10540 OF 2001 ------------------------------** **J U D G M E N T** **16.07.2007**