Failure to exercise the first option within time bars entitlement to subsequent higher pay scales.

The petitioner was appointed as a Work Charged Supervisor in 1970 and regularized as a Junior Engineer with effect from 1 April 1983.

He claimed that he had submitted an option for the higher pay scale under the respondents’ policy dated 19 July 1990, but could not produce the option form.

After retiring on 31 December 2004, he sought higher pay scales for completing 9 and 18 years of service, along with consequential refixation of pay and pension.

The respondents maintained that he had not exercised the required option within six months of the policy’s issuance.

The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner established that he exercised the option for the first higher pay scale within the prescribed six-month period

Whether, absent proof of a timely first option, the petitioner was entitled to the first and second higher pay scales

The policy dated 19 July 1990 provided for higher pay scales for eligible Class III and Class IV employees on completion of 9, 18, and 25 years of service, and prescribed six months for exercising the option.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench decision in LPA No. 200 of 2000, dated 11 February 2004, which held that under Clause IV of the scheme an employee who had not exercised the first option within time could not exercise the second option.

The Court considered the petitioner’s claim for judicial review under Article 226.

The petitioner’s assertion that he had submitted an option form in 1991 was unsupported by documentary evidence.

The respondents’ verification indicated that their records did not show that the form had been submitted or returned, and the petitioner filed no rejoinder or other material to rebut that position.

Applying the policy’s six-month deadline and the principle in LPA No. 200 of 2000, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not established a timely first option and therefore could not claim either higher pay scale.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.