S.Prabha v. The Director Of Public Instructioins

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/13TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 20614 of 2005 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- S. PRABHA, RETIRED HEADMISTRESS, S.K.V.U.P. SCHOOL, EVOOR NORTH, VIA. HARIPAD ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS -------------------------

1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S. JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 20614 of 2005 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 :

TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER (PAY REVISION - 1997 NOTIONAL FIXATION OF PAY TO HEADMASTERS - DT. 15.9.99) P2 :

TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER G.O.(P) 475/96(97)/FIN DT.6.7.1996 P3 :

TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION BY PETITIONER DT. 6.9.2001 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT P4 :

TRUE COPY OF DO DT.22.10.2002 TO THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM P5 :

TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 26309/04 DT.9.9.2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT P6 :

TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.2280/05/G.EDNDT. 3.6.2005 P7 :

TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER (P) NO.983/2000/FIN DT.22.6.2000 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 20614 of 2005 (D) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order dated 17.12.2003.

2.

The petitioner was a Head Mistress who retired in the afternoon of 31.5.2002. The petitioner's contentions are that she was promoted with effect from 1.4.1993 and she could not opt in accordance with the Government Order 25/1993 and the subsequent orders granting re-option nor was she able to opt when the 1997 pay revision was implemented by the Government. The petitioner seeks re-fixation of the pay with effect from 1.11.1998 but the representation itself was filed on 06.09.2001. 3.

The petitioner has not, at any time before the retirement or immediately thereafter, invoked the remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, even now, challenges Ext.P6 order dated

W.P.(C) No. 20614/2005 -217.12.2003 by the present writ petition of July, 2005. The pay fixation made, far earlier, and the option and re-option permitted thereon had to be availed of, at the proper time and at this distance of time, especially after the retirement of the petitioner, no revision could be made nor could the petitioner be permitted to make a fresh option. The Writ Petition hence would stand dismissed. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj