A J MARY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 audit objection. The crux of the audit objection is that the petitioner exercised reoption for 1992 pay revision only on 12.2.1996 and based on a Government letter dated 26.12.1995. The reoption was accepted also. But is stated in the counter affidavit that the said Government letter did not permit reoption, the same was only a clarification with regard to the monetary benefits pursuant to the reoption in terms of G.O.(P)380/94. But the fact remains that as per Ext.P4 Government Order, G.O(P) 615/96/(110)/Fin dated 3.10.1996, the reoption for 1992 pay revision is permissible. PETITIONER has also refunded the benefits already received as per Ext.P3. Therefore, though technically the objection is valid, since reoption is otherwise permissible by a subsequent Government Order, it is declared that the objection need not be pursued. The writ petition is allowed as above.