The applicant in O.A. No.999 of 2014 on the file of the Kerala
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the
from the service of the 3rd respondent on 31.03.1991. After his
Deputy Director of Health Services by the Government. The
petitioner is eligible for family pension. Upon the implementation
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
designated as Deputy Director of Health Services. However, by
Annexure A6-Order dated 24.08.2006 issued by the 2nd
Surgeon Grade-I. The petitioner is eligible for fixation of family
29.11.2011 issued by the Government. The petitioner's
07.11.2013, respectively. The petitioner is subjected to
claim for re-fixation of family pension. With these pleadings, the
"(i) issue an order quashing Annexure A6, Annexure A11,
Annexure A13 and Annexure A15.
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
(ii) issue a order directing respondents to re-fix the family
pension of the applicant, on the basis of the scale of pay of
the Deputy Director of Health Services (Non Cadre) as per
8th pay revision order and also as per the 9th pay revision
order as modified by Annexure A9 and to pay the arrears
with interest at 12% per annum from the date of death of
Dr.Cardosa Joseph Basil, husband of the applicant till
payment".
2.1. The reliefs sought in the original application were
opposed by the 3rd respondent by filing a reply statement dated
05.05.2015, producing therewith Annexures R3(a) and R3(b)
documents. To that reply statement, the petitioner filed a rejoinder
dated 22.09.2015, producing therewith Annexure A16 document.
2.2. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P4 order
dated 09.06.2017, dismissed the original application. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner-applicant is now before this Court with
the instant original petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the husband of the petitioner retired from service as a Civil
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
Surgeon Grade-I, on completing a total service of 27 years, on
31.03.1991 in the pay scale of Rs.2470-3675 as per the pay
revision of 1988. He was receiving the pension as Civil Surgeon
Grade-I. By Annexure A5 order dated 25.03.2006, the
Government redesignated the post of Civil Surgeon (Higher
Grade) as Deputy Director of Health Services (Non-Cadre). The
learned counsel further argued that along with the 8 th pay
revision, the Government implemented the principle of one rank
one pension. Therefore on the basis of the same, irrespective of
the date of retirement, every pensioner shall get his pension
modified as per the new revised scale of pay of his rank at the
time of retirement. However, the sanctioned family pension to the
petitioner was that of the rank of Civil Surgeon only, a rank lower
in hierarchy. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have held that the
family pension payable to the petitioner to be calculated on the
basis of the post held by her husband at the time of his retirement
as that of the Deputy Director of Health Services (Non-Cadre).
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that by Annexure R3(a) order dated
13.04.1998 it was clarified that the time bound higher grade
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
scheme granted as per Annexure A3 order dated 07.04.1995 by
which 28 existed posts of Civil Surgeon Grade-I were upgraded
to that of Deputy Director and Assistant Surgeons having 10 and
20 years of service were allowed grade promotion as Civil Surgeon
(Non-Cadre) and Civil Surgeon (Higher-Grade) with effect from
01.03.1992 with monetary benefits from 01.01.1995. It was
further clarified that the other benefits sanctioned by Annexure A3
order stand unaltered. The husband of the petitioner retired from
service prior to 01.03.1992 while drawing the pay in the scale of
Civil Surgeon Grade-I. Therefore, his pensionary claims are not
subject to alteration based on Annexure A3 order. The
upgradation of the post of Civil Surgeon Grade-I has its effect only
after the retirement of the petitioner's husband. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to family pension at the scale of pay of
Deputy Director. The learned Senior Government Pleader further
submitted that consequent to Annexure A7 pay revision order
2009, the Government issued Annexure R3(b) order dated
28.02.2011 wherein it is emphasised that if the post held by the
pensioner at the time of retirement/death while in service is no
longer in existence in the department from which he retired or if
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
the category to which the pensioner belonged have moved over to
other scales (such as UGC/AICTE/Medical Education Scheme)
after his retirement/death while in service or if the designation of
the post has changed in such a way that it is no longer possible to
ascertain to which is the revised scale corresponding to the post
from which the pensioner/employee retired /expired while in
service, the revised basic pension shall be fixed based on the
corresponding scale of pay, over successive pay revisions as
indicated in Schedule III of that order. Applying the provisions of
Annexure R3(b), the petitioner is eligible for family pension in the
scale of Rs.16650 - 23200 only, which corresponds revised scale
of pay her husband was drawing at the time of retirement.
According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, no
interference is needed to the impugned order of the Tribunal, since
it was passed taking into consideration all the above facts.
6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
7. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
8. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
9. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court
held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can
interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there
has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and
courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and
manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice
have been flouted.
10. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
11. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by a lower court or Tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
judgment of a lower court or Tribunal has been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or
tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
12. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the
Tribunal and the materials placed on record. The husband of the
petitioner was in the post of Civil Surgeon Grade-I in the pay scale
of Rs.2470-3675 at the time of his retirement on 31.03.1991. He
was allowed pension as Civil Surgeon Grade-I by Annexure A1
Pension Payment Order dated 20.10.1993. In the year 1993, as
per Annexure A2 pay revision order dated 25.09.1993, the pay
scale of Civil Surgeon Grade-I was revised to Rs.3000-5000 with
effect from 01.03.1992. As part of the rectification of anomalies,
by Annexure A3 order dated 07.04.1995, the Government re-
designated the post of Civil Surgeon Grade-II and Civil Surgeon
Grade-I as Civil Surgeon and Civil Surgeon (Higher Grade) with
the scales of pay of Rs.3000-5000 and Rs.4200-5300 respectively
as time-bound higher grades. The post of Civil Surgeon Grade-II
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
was abolished. Assistant Surgeon with 10 years of service was
allowed grade promotion as Civil Surgeon (Non Cadre) in the scale
of Rs.3000-5000, and Assistant Surgeon with 20 years of service
was allowed grade promotion as Civil Surgeon (Higher Grade) in
the scale of Rs.4200 - 5300. Thereafter by Annexure A4 order
dated 06.05.1996 it was further clarified that Assistant Surgeon
in the scale of Rs.2060 - 3200 having 10 years and 20 years
services will be allowed grade promotion as Civil Surgeon (Non
Cadre) in the scale of pay of Rs.3000 - 5000 and Deputy Director
(Non Cadre) in the scale of pay of Rs.4200 - 5300 respectively as
time bound higher grade. Therefore, by Annexures A2 to A4
orders, the post of Civil Surgeon Grade II was abolished, and the
Assistant Surgeons having 10 years and 20 years of service were
allowed grade promotion as Civil Surgeon (Non Cadre) and Civil
Surgeon (Higher Grade). Also, the existing post of Civil Surgeon
Grade I was upgraded to that of Deputy Director. By Annexure
R3(a) order dated 13.04.1998, the Government had clarified that
the time-bound higher grade scheme sanctioned as per Annexure
A3 order will take effect from 01.03.1992, with monetary benefits
from 01.01.1995, which is after the retirement of the husband of
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
the petitioner. Annexure R3(a) order is not under challenge in the
original application. Therefore, the upgradation of the post of Civil
Surgeon Grade-I as Deputy Director has its effect after the date
of retirement of the petitioner's husband. In view of para 3.1 of
Annexure R3 (b), the petitioner is entitled to family pension at the
revised scale of pay which her husband was drawing at the time
of retirement.
13. The Tribunal considered these aspects in detail by
referring to the order of the Tribunal in a similar matter filed as
O.A.No.307 of 2015. Having considered the pleadings and
materials on record and submissions made at the Bar, we find no
reason to hold that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse or illegal,
which warrants the interference of this Court by exercising
supervisory jurisdiction.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 20 OF 2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AS O.A 999 OF 2014.
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER OF THE
APPLICANT'S LATE HUSBAND DATED 20.10.1993.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)600/93/FIN DATED
25.09.1993, PR ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)325/95(41)/FIN DATED
07.04.1995 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS)377/96/(88)/FIN DATED
06.05.1996 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO.145/2006/FIN DATED
25.03.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE FAMILY PENSION REVISION
ORDER DATED 24.08.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO.85/2011/FIN DATED
26.02.2011 PR ORDER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO.389/2011/FIN DATED
15.09.2011 ONE RANK ONE PENSION ORDER ISSUED
BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO.582/2011/(27)/FIN
DATED 29.11.2011 MODIFYING THE PAY SCALE OF
DEPUTY DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES ISSUED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.06.2012
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 02.07.2012.
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.09.2012
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 17.09.2012.
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
APPLICANT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.32392/A1/2013/H&FWD DATED 07.11.2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT DATED 5.5.2015 IN O.A 999 OF 2014
OP(KAT)No.20 of 2018 2025:KER:96310
ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure R3(A) TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO.1371/98/(160)/FIN
DATED 13.04.1998.
Annexure R3(B) TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)87/2011/FIN DATED
28.2.2011.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.9.2015
IN O.A 999 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure A16 COPY OF G.O(P)NO.3000/98/FIN DATED
25.11.1998.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.6.2017 PASSED
BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN O.A 999 OF 2014.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.389/2011/FIN DATED
15TH SEPT.2011
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY REVISION ORDER G.O(P)
NO.480/89/FIN. DATED 1.11.1989
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY REVISION ORDER G.O(P)
NO.9/2016/FIN DATED 20.1.2016.
