State Of Kerala vs Lawrence.T
2025 Latest Caselaw 10171 Ker

Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Lawrence.T on 28 October, 2025

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024            1             2025:KER:80579


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

                                  &

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

   TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947

                       OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024

        AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2023 IN OA NO.1497 OF 2021 OF

KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS/1 TO 3 RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:

    1       STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
            GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001.

    2       THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
            JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695014.

    3       THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL,
            PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.


        BY SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP



RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A.:

            LAWRENCE.T,
            AGED 76 YEARS
            S/O. THOMAS.T, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT (RTD),
            DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
            PIN: 695014, RESIDING AT 'L.S.NIVAS', MALAYAM.P.O,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695571.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.SATHEESH KUMAR (S 3441)
 OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024           2         2025:KER:80579


          SHRI.ADARSH SIVADASAN
          SMT.KARTHIKA S.A.




      THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 15.10.2025, THE COURT ON 28.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024                    3                 2025:KER:80579


                                JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents in O.A.No.1497 of 2021 on the file of the

Kerala Administrative Tribunal, 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 Ext.P6 order dated 12.09.2023

passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The respondent retired from service as an

Administrative Assistant from the General Education Department,

on 31.05.1999. He was granted retrospective promotion in the

cadre of UD Clerk with effect from 01.11.1971. By Annexure A1

letter dated 06.03.2020, the 3rd petitioner informed the

respondent that there will be no change in pay for the respondent

following the retrospective promotion. The 1 st petitioner, by

Annexure A2 letter dated 27.05.2019, granted permission to refix

the pay of the respondent with effect from 01.11.1971 with a rider

that the arrears of salary from 01.11.1971 to 31.10.1979 will be

notional. Pursuant to Annexure A2, the respondent submitted

Annexure A3 application dated 30.06.2019 for re-option in respect OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:80579

of 1973, 1978 and 1993 pay revisions. By Annexure A4 letter

dated 14.07.2021, the 1st petitioner rejected the request of the

respondent for re-option on the ground that the application for re-

option was not submitted within three months from the date of

sanction. Aggrieved by the decision communicated by Annexure

A4, the respondent submitted Annexure A5 appeal petition dated

19.07.2021 before the 1st petitioner. He further submitted

Annexure A6 representation dated 19.07.2021 before the 2nd

petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent approached the Tribunal

with the present original application filed under Section 19 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs;

"1 Call for the records leading to Annexure A4 and set aside the same.

2. Order or direction may be given to the 1 st respondent to sanction re-option to the applicant in respect of 1973, 1978 & 1983 pay revisions and consequential re-fixation of pay.

3. Order or direction may be given to the 1st respondent to extend the benefit of notional re-fixation of pay envisaged in Annexure A2 and allow consequential pensionary benefits.

4. Order or direction may be given to the 1 st respondent to consider Annexure A5 appeal petition within a definite time frame, taking into account Annexure A3 produced by the applicant."

OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:80579

3. On behalf of the 2nd petitioner, a reply statement dated

22.02.2022 was filed before the Tribunal producing therewith

Annexures R2(a) and R2(b) documents. To that reply statement,

the respondent filed a rejoinder dated 28.03.2021, producing

therewith Annexures A7 and A8 documents. After hearing both

sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal

by Ext.P6 order dated 12.09.2023 disposed of the original

application, directing the 1st petitioner to ensure that Annexure A2

is implemented within the period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of that order. Paragraph 4 and the last the last

paragraph of that order read thus;

"4. A perusal of the contention of the 1 st respondent shows that no retrospective revision or change in scale of pay has taken effect in the case of the applicant on a date prior to his date of option, and the general principles where re-option is allowed are not applicable in the case of the applicant. So the contention of the respondent is perfectly justified that the applicant cannot be granted re-option with effect from 01.11.1981 for pay revision 1973, 1978 and 1983. But at the same time the applicant has a contention that the benefits which were sanctioned as per Annexure A2 were not disbursed to the applicant so far. Though there was a direction to refix his pay with effect from 01.11.1971 in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk, that was not done, is his case. The applicant has referred to the reply statement filed on OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:80579

behalf of the 1st respondent wherein it is submitted that the 1 st respondent, in consultation with the Finance Department, had informed the 2nd respondent to revise the salary of the applicant with effect from 01.11.1971. The above directions are seen reflected in Annexure A2 also. In the above circumstances, the 1 st respondent is directed to ensure that Annexure A2 is implemented, if not already implemented, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Original Application is disposed of with the above direction."

4. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the

petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit

that the Accountant General, vide Annexure A1 letter dated

06.03.2020, intimated that there is no change in pay already fixed

in the Gazetted post. Even though the promotion of the

respondent to the cadre of UD Clerk was reassigned from

01.11.1971 as per Order No.2280/86/SC4/Special Cell dated

09.05.1989, the respondent had not submitted his re-option for

pay revisions of 1973, 1978 and 1983 within three months from

the date of the order sanctioning re-option. Hence, the findings of

the Tribunal are wrong. The learned Senior Government Pleader

would further submit that, except in cases involving retrospective

revision or change in scale of pay that takes effect on a date prior OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:80579

to the date of option exercised by the employee, re-option is not

allowed. Moreover, as per the principles of option, the date of

option shall not be beyond the date of promotion or one year from

the date of pay revision order, whichever is earlier. If the order of

the Tribunal is complied with, huge number of such applications

will be received in the Government for re-examination of earlier

Government decisions in similar cases, which will cause a huge

financial burden to the State Exchequer.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent would submit that by the impugned order, the Tribunal

directed the 1st petitioner to ensure that Annexure A2 is

implemented within a period of two months. No interference is

needed with that order, since it was passed after considering the

contentions raised by the parties on merits, and it is not suffering

from any illegality.

7. 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 OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024 8 2025:KER:80579

have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the

territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

8. 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.

9. 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 OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024 9 2025:KER:80579

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

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.

10. 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 OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024 10 2025:KER:80579

have been flouted.

11. 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

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.

12. 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 OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024 11 2025:KER:80579

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

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.

13. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent

did not submit re-option within the prescribed period of three

months from the date of the order sanctioning re-option, and

except in cases involving retrospective revision or change in scale

of pay that takes effect on a date prior to the date of option

exercised by the employee, re-option is not allowed. In this case,

by Annexure A1, it is clarified that there is no change in pay of the

respondent, following the retrospective promotion. As per the OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024 12 2025:KER:80579

order dated 09.05.1989, the promotion date of the respondent

was reassessed, but he has requested for re-option after a lapse

of many years. But the contention of the respondent is that though

he submitted the re-option in time, the same was not sanctioned

within the prescribed period of three months due to administrative

delay. For the delay on the part of the 2nd petitioner in processing

the matter, the 1st petitioner declined the request for re-option

and consequent refixation of pay culminated in dropping

pensionary benefits to the respondent. He has been penalised for

no fault of him. The Tribunal found that no retrospective revision

or changes of scale of pay have taken effect in the case of the

respondent on a day prior to his date of option, and the general

principles, where re-option is allowed, are not applicable in the

case of the respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal found substance

in the contention of the petitioners regarding the entitlement of

the respondent for re-option. But the Tribunal found that the

benefits which were sanctioned as per Annexure A2 were not

disbursed to the respondent, though there was a direction to refix

his pay with effect from 01.11.1971 in the cadre of Upper Division OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024 13 2025:KER:80579

Clerk. In fact, the reply statement was referred by the Tribunal

wherein it is stated that the 1st petitioner informed the 2nd

petitioner to revise the salary of the respondent with effect from

01.11.1971, and the same is reflected in Annexure A2 also.

14. Having considered the argument addressed at the Bar

and the materials on record, we find no ground to hold the

impugned order of the Tribunal as perverse or illegal, which

warrants interference of this Court, under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-

 OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024         14               2025:KER:80579


                  APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 214/2024

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES

Exhibit P1          A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO.1497/2021 ALONG
                    WITH ANNEXURES
Annexure A1         TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GEO9/C/L-43/2388

DATED 06.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GED-

C1/137/2017/GED DATED 27.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.06.2019 ALONG WITH OPTION FORMS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.GED-C1/137/2017/GED DATED 14.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 18.02.2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.R1/26522/ 2016/DGE/K.DIS DATED 06.09.2019 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 07.03.2022 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.101/80/(167)/FIN DATED 30.01.1980 Annexure R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.515/2007/FIN DATED 19.10.2007 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE REPLY STATEMENT OF SECOND RESPONDENT ALONG ANNEXURE A7 TO A8 Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.4345/2008/G.EDN DATED 29.09.2008 Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.170/2021/FIN DATED 17.12.2021 OP(KAT) NO. 214 OF 2024 15 2025:KER:80579

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 12.09.2023