M V ALOYSIUS Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P2, P3 and P5 and seeking for a declaration that the option exercised by the petitioner and the consequent pay fixation made in terms of Ext.P1 is proper and valid and for a further direction to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.36,450/- with interest, which was recovered from the DCRG of the petitioner.

(2.) The short facts in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner exercised re-option of grade promotion w.e.f. 1.10.1993 which was approved and sanctioned by the District Educational Officer in terms of Ext.P1 dated 22.3.1995. The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2004. Later the petitioner was informed that an audit objection was raised and an amount of Rs.36,450/- was recovered from the DCRG. Ext.P2 is the audit objection. Ext.P3 is the liability certificate that had been issued to the petitioner on 8.11.2004. The petitioner later received the pension payment order, wherein it was mentioned that he has only 26 years service. According to him, he had service for 26 years 7 months and 15 days which had to be computed as 27 years. The petitioner submitted a revision petition which came to be disposed of as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C)No.16884/05 as per Ext.P5 Government order dated 16.1.2006. In Ext.P5, it was indicated that the re-option exercised by the petitioner was on the basis of the Government orders dated 9.6.1994 and 23.8.1994. The said Government orders did not allow to challenge the date of option for higher grade which was already granted on or after 1.3.1992, but it only permits to re-opt the grade promotion for 1992 pay revision benefits, on the date of grade which fell due on or after 1.3.1992. It was held that the re-option exercised by the petitioner from 1.10.1993 is inadmissible. Further it was observed that the date of birth of the petitioner was 15.1.1949 and his date of superannuation is 31.1.2004. He was allowed to continue beyond the date of completion of 55 years, till the end of the academic year, which period will not be computed for pensionary benefits in terms of G.O.(P)No.360/80/Fin. dated 15.9.1986.

(3.) The petitioner submits that there is no restriction in the Government orders dated 9.6.1994 and 23.8.1994, limiting the scope of re-option to the date of grade promotion wholly ; whereas facility was granted to opt time- bound higher grade which fell due/granted first, on or after 1.3.1992 for pay revision benefits. It was also contended that there was no reason why the recovery should be effected after a considerably long period.