Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Sukumaran K.V on 27 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.254 of 2017
2025:KER:64937
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 5TH BHADRA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 254 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2017 IN O.A(EKM)NO.534 OF 2014
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.
BY ADV UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.G.P
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN OA:
1 SUKUMARAN K.V,UNDER SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
ON DEPUTATION TO KERALA STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY,
HIGH COURT COMPOUND, KOCHI AS ACCOUNTS OFFICER-682031.
2 BABU.V.,SECTION OFFICER, (HIGHER GRADE) ON OTHER DUTY
AS DISTRICT FINANCE INSPECTING OFFICER,
DISTRICT FINANCE INSPECTING SQUAD,
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, KERALA-673001.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.EBIN MATHEW, SHRI.P.J.MATHEW
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
20.08.2025, THE COURT ON 27.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(KAT)No.254 of 2017
2025:KER:64937
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The respondents in O.A.(EKM)No.534 of 2014 on the file of
the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram ('the
Tribunal', in short) filed this original petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 24.01.2017
passed by the Tribunal in that original application. For convenience
of reference, parties are referred in this judgment as they were
referred in the impugned order of the Tribunal, unless otherwise
stated.
2. The applicants who are the Under Secretary and Section
Officer (Higher Grade) in the Finance Department of the
Government of Kerala filed the original application under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction
against the respondents to assign the correct rank to the
applicants in the seniority list of Senior Grade, Selection Grade
and Section Officer and consequential correct date of promotion
in each cadre with all service benefits including arrears of salary.
3. Going by the averments in the original application, the 1 st
2025:KER:64937
applicant entered service as Assistant Grade-II on 04.07.1996. His
probation was declared with effect from 21.01.1999. During the
probation period, he passed the departmental test. He became
Assistant Grade-I on 21.09.1999. He was regularised in the
category of Assistant Grade-I with effect from 21.01.1999. The 2nd
applicant entered service as Assistant Grade-II on 09.04.1997. His
probation was declared with effect from 09.04.1999. He also
passed the required test for further promotion during the
probation period. He was provisionally promoted as Assistant
Grade-I with effect from 18.11.1998 and it was regularised with
effect from 18.10.1999.
3.1. The applicants state that though they were eligible for
the benefits of Rule 28(b)(b)(b) of Part II of the Kerala State and
Subordinate Services Rules ('KS & SSR', in short), the same was
not granted. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed representation
before the 1st respondent and by Annexure A1 order dated
01.09.2007, the seniority of the applicants in the post of Assistant
Grade-I was reassigned with effect from 21.01.1999 and
21.07.1999, respectively. Annexure A1 order was issued by the
2025:KER:64937
Government during the pendency of W.P.(C)No.32153 of 2005
filed by the applicants, and in view of Annexure A1 order, the writ
petition was disposed of by Annexure A2 judgment dated
18.01.2008. As per Annexure A2 judgment, this Court held that
the earlier seniority list was replaced by Annexure A1 order and
therefore the grievance of the petitioners therein had been
redressed. The writ petition was closed, subject to the right of the
parties therein to challenge the Annexure A1 order, if they have
any grievance against the same. But none of the parties to that
writ petition challenged Annexure A2 judgment.
3.2. The applicants contend that the correction of seniority
as per Annexure A1 made in the cadre of Financial Assistant
Grade-I, which was recorded in Annexure A2 judgment, was not
carried forward in the cadre of Senior Grade, Selection Grade,
Assistant and Section Officer. The selection list of officers to be
appointed to the category of Section Officers for the year 2007,
issued vide Annexure A3 Government Order dated 16.03.2007,
did not follow the revised list. Without taking into account the
fact that Annexure A1 order is merged with Annexure A2
2025:KER:64937
judgment, the respondents published Annexure A4 provisional
seniority list dated 15.11.2010 to Accounts Officers/Sections
Officers in the Finance Department as on 01.04.2010. Aggrieved
by Annexure A4 seniority list, the applicants and two others
approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.55 of 2013. By
Annexure A5 order dated 05.06.2013, that original application was
disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the
objections of the applicants against the provisional seniority list
while finalising the same.
3.3. The applicants further state that the 2 nd respondent
finalised the seniority list totally ignoring Annexure A1 order and
also without considering the objections filed by the applicants
against Annexure A4 provisional seniority list of Accounts Officers
and Sections Officers as directed in Annexure A5 order and
published Annexure A6 final seniority list of Accounts
Officers/Sections Officers dated 31.08.2013, as on 01.04.2010.
According to the applicants, if the revised seniority list was
adopted in the cadre of Section Officer, the 1 st applicant would
have found a place between serial Nos.19 and 20, and the 2 nd
2025:KER:64937
applicant would have been placed in serial Nos.54 and 56 in
Annexure A6. Hence, the applicants filed the original application
before the Tribunal.
4. The respondents filed a reply statement dated
11.09.2015 in the original application, contending that while
issuing Annexure A3 select list, the applicants could not be granted
the benefit of Annexure A1 order since this order was issued only
after the select list was published. The select list, Annexure A3, is
dated 16.03.2007, whereas Annexure A1 order re-assigning the
seniority of the applicants in Assistant Grade I, granting the
benefit of Rule 28(b)(b)(b) was issued on 09.08.2007. The
respondents also state that they had consulted the P & ARD to
ascertain whether the applicants were entitled for the benefits of
Rule 28(b)(b)(b) of Part II KS & SSR and it was on the basis of the
advice given by the above Department that the applicants were
not granted the benefits arising out of Annexure A2 judgment. It
is stated that the seniority list was finalised by reckoning the date
of acquiring the qualification for promotion of the applicants as the
next date of publishing the results of the Departmental Test. The
2025:KER:64937
respondents, therefore, sought dismissal of the original
application.
5. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal disposed of the
original application by the impugned order dated 24.01.2017, as
said above. Being aggrieved, the respondents are now before this
Court with this original petition.
6. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that in Annexure A2 judgment, this Court directed the applicants
to make their grievance against the assignment of seniority in the
provisional seniority list, and it was held that if the applicants have
a grievance against the assignment of seniority, they may work
out their remedies. Therefore, Annexure A2 judgment is not
conclusive as far as the seniority of the applicants. Thereafter,
Annexure A6 final seniority list was published by the Government.
However, Annexure A6 seniority list was not challenged in the
original application. The persons who will be affected by any
change in that seniority are also not made parties in the original
2025:KER:64937
application. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable
to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
applicants/ respondents herein would submit that the benefit
granted to the applicants by Annexure A1 was not carried forward
while preparing Annexure A6 seniority list. The Tribunal considered
this aspect and held that there was a conclusive inter-party
judgment by referring to Annexure A2 judgment of this Court, in
respect of the seniority of the applicants and therefore no
interference is needed to that order.
9. The claim of the applicants is that the benefit of Rule
28(b) (b)(b) of Part II KS & SSR granted to them by Annexure A1
order was not carried forward while preparing Annexure A6
seniority list. Though the applicants contend that by Annexure
A2 judgment dated 18.01.2008 passed by this Court, the issue is
concluded, while going through that judgment, we notice that in
view of the publication of the revised seniority list, that writ
petition was closed by this Court as infructuous. It was further
held in that judgment that if the applicants have any grievance
2025:KER:64937
against the assignment of seniority fixed in the revised seniority
list, they may work out their remedies. Therefore, Annexure A2
judgment cannot be said as conclusive in respect of the dispute of
seniority raised by the applicants.
10. Subsequent to the passing of Annexure A2 judgment,
further steps were taken by the Government and published
Annexure A6 seniority list. According to the applicants, applicant
No.1 ought to have been placed between serial Nos.19 and 20,
and applicant No.2 ought to have been placed between serial
Nos.54 and 56 in Annexure A6 seniority list. But surprisingly, the
applicants have not chosen to challenge Annexure A6 in the
original application. Moreover, they have not chosen to make any
of the persons included in Annexure A6 seniority list, who will be
affected by any change in the seniority list by inducting or, in other
words, shuffling the position of the applicants in that list, as
claimed by them, parties to the Original Application. Without a
challenge against Annexure A6 seniority list and making all the
affected persons as parties to the Original Application, the
Tribunal ought not to have granted the relief in favour of the
2025:KER:64937
applicants.
11. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record
and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the discussions
made above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of the
Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the Original Petition is allowed by setting aside
Ext.P3 order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the Tribunal in
O.A.(EKM) No.534 of 2014 and the O.A. stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2025:KER:64937
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 254/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OA (EKM) 534/2014 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P2 REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(A) REJOINDER FILED BY APPLICANTS
EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.01.17.
