M VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as a UPSA in an aided School with effect from 23.7.1999. THEre was a dispute regarding her approval, which was later granted with effect from 23.7.1999 itself by order dated 4.8.2007. In the meanwhile, the petitioner exercised her option for revision of pay in accordance with 2004 pay revision order and she opted to come over to the revised scale of pay with effect from 6.6.2005. THE petitioner now wants to change the date of option as 1.7.2004 instead of 6.6.2005. THE petitioner's request for the change of option date has been rejected by Ext.P9 on the ground that the time limit prescribed for re-option has already expired. THE petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that, since the question of the approval of the petitioner's appointment was pending, the petitioner cannot be faulted for not filing the re-option within the prescribed time limit. I do not think that the petitioner's contention can be countenanced, in so far as the petitioner had in fact exercised her option once for which the delay in approval of appointment was not a bar. She puts forward the delay in passing orders on approval as an excuse only for the question of re-option. If the petitioner could file the original option in time, nothing prevented her from filing the re-option also within time. As such, the petitioner's contention that it is because of delay in passing orders on her approval cannot be countenanced now. Admittedly, the petitioner did not exercise the re-option within the period prescribed for the same by the Government. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to the re- option prayed for.