Kerala High Court
Leelamma P.E vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.316 of 2025 2025:KER:58674
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 316 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2025 IN OA (EKM) NO.586 OF
2024 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2025 IN RA NO.12 OF 2025 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (ADDITIONAL BENCH,
ERNAKULAM)
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
LEELAMMA P.E.
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O. ALBERT JUDE K.A., [RETIRED HEADMISTRESS, GOVT.
UPS, KAPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM],
RESIDING AT KELANTHARA, PANANGAD P.O., KOCHI, PIN -
682506
BY ADV SHRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695014
2
OP(KAT)No.316 of 2025 2025:KER:58674
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ANGAMALY, PIN - 683572
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
01.08.2025, THE COURT ON 7.8.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
OP(KAT)No.316 of 2025 2025:KER:58674
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by the applicant in OA(EKM)No.586 of 2024
on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram ('the Tribunal', in short) challenging Ext.P4
order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original
application as well as Ext.P6 order dated 27.06.2025 in
RA(EKM)No.12 of 2025 filed by the petitioner to review the order
dated 27.05.2025.
2. The petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2024 on
attaining the age of superannuation while working as
Headmistress at Government U.P. School, Kaprassery. When she
was due for retirement, the Accounts Officer of the 3 rd respondent
verified the fixation of her salary and raised various objections in
Annexure A1 report. The petitioner submitted Annexure A3
representation dated 29.01.2024 explaining the objections raised
in Annexure A1 report. By Annexure A4 letter dated 21.02.2024,
the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that the objections in
Annexure A1 report will sustain. Challenging Annexures A1 report
OP(KAT)No.316 of 2025 2025:KER:58674
and A4 letter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. By Ext.P4
order, the Tribunal finally disposed of the Original Application,
upholding the case of the petitioner and issuing undermentioned
directions:
"(i) It is declared that no amount is liable to be recovered
from the applicant based on Annexure A1. There shall be a
direction to the respondent not to recover any amount from
the applicant on the basis of the objection raised in
Annexure A1.
(ii) Regarding the re-fixation of pay, applicant would be free
to approach the 1st respondent with a representation within
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
There shall be a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider
the same and pass orders on the same within a further
period of two months after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the applicant.
(iii) As it is pointed out that the applicant is not paid any
amount towards DCRG, there shall be a direction to sanction
and disburse the pensionary benefits to the applicant
without any delay, subject to the decision to be taken by the
Government".
3. Contending that the 2nd direction in Ext.P4 order will put
the petitioner to untold difficulties in the hands of the 1 st
respondent and that direction is an error apparent on the face of
the record, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 review application before the
OP(KAT)No.316 of 2025 2025:KER:58674
Tribunal. By Ext.P6 order dated 27.06.2025, the Tribunal
dismissed that review application. Thereafter, the petitioner
approached this Court with the instant original petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order, the Tribunal found that the
action of the respondents in refixing the pay and effecting
recovery is illegal and arbitrary. After holding so, the Tribunal
ought not to have directed the petitioner to submit a
representation before the 1st respondent for refixation of pay, and
that direction will in effect nullify the observations made in the
order.
6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader
submitted that the 1st respondent will consider the refixation of
the pay of the petitioner only in accordance with the observations
and directions in Ext.P4 order and hence there is no interference
warranted to the order of the Tribunal.
7. By Ext.P4 order dated 27.05.2025, the Tribunal found
that the direction to refix the pay of the petitioner and the
OP(KAT)No.316 of 2025 2025:KER:58674
consequential recovery towards the alleged excess pay as
unsustainable. The Tribunal held that the action of the
respondents in refixing the pay and effecting recovery was illegal
and arbitrary. By relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in
State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [2015 (1)
KLT 429], Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala [2022 SCC
Online SC 536] and Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar
[2024 KHC Online 6422] the Tribunal declared that no amount
is liable to be recovered from the petitioner based on Annexure A1
report. The Tribunal further directed the petitioner to approach the
1st respondent with a representation in respect of refixation of pay
and directed the 1st respondent to consider the same and pass
orders on the same within a further period of two months, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. When the
Tribunal issued that direction on the basis of specific findings in
the order, the 1st respondent cannot deviate from those findings
while passing the order as directed. The apprehension of the
petitioner that, in effect, the direction will nullify the observations
made in the order of the Tribunal has no basis and is an imaginary
one. The Tribunal also considered this contention of the petitioner
OP(KAT)No.316 of 2025 2025:KER:58674
in Ext.P6 order passed in the review application filed by her.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to interfere
with the impugned orders of the Tribunal.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
OP(KAT)No.316 of 2025 2025:KER:58674
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 316/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.586/2024 FILED BEFORE THE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT IN O.A.586/2014 OF THE HON'BLE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.DDEEKM/6141/2023/IA-3 DATED 02.07.2024 OF
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 27.05.2025
IN O.A.586/2024 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW
APPLICATION(EKM)NO.12/2025 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE KAT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2025 OF
THE KAT ON RA(EKM)12/2025 IN
O.A.(EKM)586/2024 OF THE HON'BLE KAT.
