THE STATE OF KERALA, Vs. RAMACHANDRAN V.K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS in WP(C). No. 19455/2009 are the appellants. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition. He is at present working as Asst. Educational Officer. He started his career as an aided school teacher. Later, he got appointment as HSA in government school. From that post he was promoted to the present post. While fixing the salary on the basis of the VIIth Pay Revision, the service rendered by the respondent in the aided school, though not countable for pay revision, was counted and pay was fixed. The audit party found out the same and issued Ext.P2 audit objection dated 4.5.2006. Steps were initiated for recovery of Rs. 25,117/ -, which according to the audit party, found drawn excess by the respondent. He approached this Court by filing WP(C). No. 20844/2006 seeking an order to quash the recovery proceedings. In the meanwhile he filed a petition to the 3rd appellant to grant him a chance for re -option. Admitting that his challenge against the recovery proceedings is unsustainable, he sought permission to withdraw the earlier writ petition. The learned Judge noted that the request for re -option was filed beyond the time granted by the first appellant. But, it was noticed that since Ext.P2 objection is subsequent to the time limit for filing re -option. In the above circumstance, the learned Judge by Ext.P1 Judgment dated 12.3.2008 directed the first appellant to consider the re -option and to re -fix the salary in accordance with that option, if that option is otherwise in order. Without noticing Ext.P1 Judgment, his request for re -option was rejected by Ext.P5 order. The respondent, thereupon filed Ext.P6 letter requesting to revise Ext.P5 in the light of Ext.P1 Judgment. But, ignoring the direction contained in Ext.P1, the first appellant, by Ext.P7 order rejected the re -option for the reason that it was filed beyond the time prescribed.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by Exts.P5 and P7, the respondent preferred WP(C). No. 19455/2009. The Single Judge taking into account of the entire facts and circumstances, especially taking note that Ext.P1 was not assailed, quashed Exts.P5 and P7 and issued direction to the first appellant to reconsider the re -option submitted by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 judgment and directed to re -fix the salary in accordance with the re -option.

(3.) WE heard either side. The fact that the respondent obtained Ext.P1 Judgment whereby the appellants were directed to consider the re -option submitted by the respondent, though out of time in the peculiar circumstance, is not disputed. The appellants had not assailed Ext.P1 Judgment. Thus it has become final. The appellants are bound to comply with Ext.P1. Going by Ext.P1, we find that the first appellant in utter disregard to the direction contained in Ext.P1 Judgment issued Exts.P5 and P7 orders. So long as Ext.P1 Judgment remains unchallenged, the Judgment impugned is unassailable because it is only in tune with Ext.P1 Judgment. In the above circumstance, we find that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the Judgment in the writ petition. If at all it is erred, it is only to the extent of time limit prescribed by the first appellant. The learned Judge had given good reason for taking it as an exceptional case. There is no illegality or impropriety or error. We find that the learned Single Judge was right in setting aside Exts.P5 and P7 orders. We find no reason to interfere with. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.