LATHIKA E Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) It is submitted that the petitioner had retired from service as Headmistress of an aided school on 31.03.2005. By Ext.P2 Government Order dated 16.07.2014, an opportunity for submitting an option for fixation of pay with regard to the 1997, 2004 and 2009 pay revisions had been granted. It is submitted that the petitioner was under treatment from May 2014 to December, 2014 and was not aware of the issuance of Ext.P2 order. It is stated that on getting information of Ext.P2, she had submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 10.03.2016 seeking permission to submit a re-option for notional selection grade by extending the benefit of Ext.P2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the service book of the petitioner was with the 6th respondent and the 6th respondent did not inform the petitioner about Ext.P2. Though repeated representations were filed and the matter was also taken up before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, the benefits of Ext.P2 were not granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking an opportunity to submit a re-option in terms of Ext.P2. It is submitted that if the chance for submitting a re-option is denied to the petitioner, she will be put to prejudice and the benefits, which are legally due to her, will be denied to her. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 67 years old and that the Human Rights Commission had directed the consideration of her re-option. It is further contended that the refusal to grant the benefits is illegal and unsustainable.