(1.) THE petitioner is seeking for a direction for implementation of Ext.P6 which evidences the fact that the reoption submitted by the petitioner for 1997 pay revision has been admitted. In fact, the present reoption was submitted after the reoption which was submitted earlier, was found irregular by the audit party.
(2.) THE petitioner was working as LPSA who retired from service on 30.6.2006. She was granted the benefit of 1992 pay revision and was drawing salary in accordance with the revised scale. For the 1997 pay revision the petitioner had opted the revised scale with effect from 1.3.1997. In fact, based on G.O. No.399/178/99 dated 5.2.1999 the petitioner submitted a reoption for the 1992 pay revision with effect from 3.8.1996. Consequently, reoption for the 1997 pay revision with effect from 1.8.1997 was also submitted and the same was sanctioned as per Ext.P1 order. This was objected in the audit and the stand taken was that as far as 1997 pay revision is concerned, the reoption submitted is not correct. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.9,653/- was refunded by the petitioner, being the alleged excess payment in respect of the 1992 pay revision and another amount of Rs.20,537/- was recovered from the DCRG, being the alleged excess payment pursuant to reoption in respect of 1997 pay revision. THEreafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation seeking for permission to re-opt 1997 pay revision and restoration of benefits. THE further communication to the petitioner in this regard, has been produced as Ext.P5, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner can submit reoption in respect of 1997 pay revision and she was directed to approach the Assistant Educational Officer, Payyannur. Ext.P6 is a further communication which refers to G.O.(P)365/2005(150) dated 6.8.2005 which permitted reoption. This communication also shows that reoption has been admitted. Since the petitiioner has not been disbursed the monetary benefits, this writ petition has been field seeking for various reliefs.