Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Subhadra Amma.K,W/O.Moiudeen Kannu.M on 28 October, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:81027
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
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2024 IN O.A.NO.2224 OF 2021 OF
THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL
JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695034
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN O.A.:
SUBHADRA AMMA K.
W/O.MOIUDEEN KANNU M.,
AGED 72 YEARS
DENTAL MECHANIC (RETIRED), RESIDING AT SHEEMA MANZIL,
PALLIMON EAST, PALLIMON P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN -
691576
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:81027
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The respondents in O.A.No.2224 of 2021, on the file of
the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram,
have filed this original petition invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P4 order dated
16.08.2024 of the Tribunal in that original application, which
was one filed by the respondent-applicant, invoking the
provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A4 order dated
nil issued by the 1st respondent State; a declaration that the
applicant is entitled to count her beak in service for the purpose
of computing qualifying service for pension; and to direct the
respondents to reckon the period from the date of advice of the
applicant as Dental Mechanic for the purpose of computing
pensionary benefits.
2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent State filed
Ext.P2 reply statement dated 10.08.2022, opposing the reliefs
sought for, producing therewith Annexure R1(a) to R1(c)
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
documents. The applicant filed Ext.P3 rejoinder dated
22.07.2024.
3. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal
by Ext.P4 order dated 16.08.2024, disposed of the original
application, by setting aside Annexure A4 order dated nil and
the State Government is directed to consider the
representation dated 05.12.2015, afresh, in strict compliance
with the directions in Annexure A1 order dated 03.11.2015 in
T.A.No.5031 of 2012, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of that order. Paragraphs 4, 5 and also
the last paragraph of Ext.P4 order dated 16.08.2024 read thus;
"4. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri.Vivek
Vijayakumar attributes serious arbitrariness in the
impugned order and also non application of mind. He
points out that in spite of specific directions of this
Tribunal, the request of the applicant was not considered
invoking power under Rule 39 of Part II of KS & SSR.
Instead, the Government had examined the merits of the
matter under Rule 31 of Part III KSR. The direction of
the Tribunal was to invoke the power under Rule 39 and
to examine whether rigour of the rule 31 of Part III KSR
could be relaxed in the case of the applicant. He further
contends that this was not done by the Government and
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
the action of the Government is highly contumacious.
The learned Government Pleader points out that there is
absolutely no legal basis for the contention of the
applicant that she is having a qualified service for getting
the pension. Going by Rule 31 Part III KSR interruptions
beyond one year are not liable to be reckoned for the
purpose of qualifying service. In the present case, she is
having hardly 7 years 5 months and 23 days of service
before interruption. The learned Government Pleader
Shri. B.S Sankarlal also points out that the judgment in
Muhammed Kunhi C.M v. State of Kerala and
others reported in [2011 (2) KHC 655] was found to
be not good law by the Hon'ble High Court in W.A.No.917
of 2019. So, he contends that the applicant does not
deserve any kind of special treatment in the hands of the
Government.
5. The arguments of the applicant to get the period of
interruption reckoned as qualifying service under Part III
KSR was elaborately considered by this Tribunal in
Annexure A1 and it was found against the applicant. At
the same time, the Tribunal appreciated the fact that the
respondents had admitted the administrative delay that
had occurred in extending reappointment to the
applicant. Had the applicant be given reappointment on
an early date she would have got sufficient service for
pension. It was in the above background that this
Tribunal observed that the applicant's case required a
special treatment and the direction was to pass
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
appropriate orders invoking power under Rule 39 of KS
& SSR. Moreover, there is a specific direction to the
Government to examine whether rigour of Note 3 of Rule
31 Part III KSR could be relaxed for the purpose of
granting minimum pension to the applicant. In Annexure
A4, the Government has dealt in detail the legal
entitlement of the applicant for getting the interruption
counted as qualifying service. The relevant statutory
Rules have been discussed in detail. But the Government
has not examined the case of the applicant to find
whether it is a fit case to invoke Rule 39 of Part II KS &
SSR. The Government was bound to examine whether
the rigour of Rule 31 of Part III KSR could be relaxed
extending the benefit of counting interruption as
qualifying service in the case of the applicant. But that
was not done, though directed by this Tribunal. Therefore,
the action of the Government in Annexure A4 is highly
illegal and Annexure A4 is an order issued without
application of mind and against the directions in
Annexure A1 order of this Tribunal. Accordingly,
Annexure A4 is quashed and the Government is directed
to consider the representation of the applicant dated
05.12.2015 afresh in strict compliance with the
directions in Annexure A1. The Government shall pass
such orders within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
The original application is disposed of with the above
direction."
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
4. Challenging Ext.P4 order dated 16.08.2024 of the
Tribunal in O.A.No.2224 of 2021, the petitioners-respondents
are before this Court in this original petition.
5. We heard arguments of the learned Senior
Government Pleader for the petitioners-respondents and also
the learned counsel for the respondent-applicant.
6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with
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.
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
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
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 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
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
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 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
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
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 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
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
12. By Ext.P4 order dated 16.08.2024, the Tribunal set
aside Annexure A4 order dated nil of the 1st respondent State
(1st petitioner herein) and directed the State to consider the
representation dated 05.12.2015 made by the respondent-
applicant, afresh, in strict compliance with the directions
contained in Annexure A1 order dated 03.11.2015. By
Annexure A1 order dated 03.11.2015, the Tribunal disposed of
T.A.No.5031 of 2012 filed by the respondent-applicant.
Paragraphs 4 to 9 and also the last paragraph of Annexure A1
order dated 03.11.2015, which read thus;
"4. The respondents have filed a reply statement
wherein by relying upon Rule 31, Note 3 of Part III KSR
it is stated that the period of qualifying service which
can be reckoned is only 20 days, i.e., from the date of
appointment till the date of retrenchment. Learned
Government Pleader submitted that in the light of Rule
31, Note 3 of Part III KSR the applicant is not entitled
to succeed.
5. The said rule provides for reckoning of interruptions
in service of an employee for the purpose of granting
pension. The rule states that interruptions in the service
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
of an employee will count for pension provided it is not
specifically laid down in these rules or otherwise
ordered by competent authority and recorded
accordingly in the service book. Note 3 provides that in
cases where the period of an interruption in service
exceeds one year, the benefit of reckoning the period of
such interruption in service shall be restricted to the
periods he was actually in service prior to the date of
the interruption.
6. Here the case of the applicant is that there were
vacancies after the retrenchment of the applicant. In
the reply statement filed on behalf of the first
respondent while referring to the said contention it is
stated in paragraph 9 that "it is a fact that some
administrative delay has been occurred in giving re-
appointment to the petitioner, even if this delay has
been avoided, the petitioner would not be out of the
purview of Rule 31 of KSR Part III". The period of delay
has not been specifically mentioned therein.
7. Going back to Ext.P4 judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court, that was a case where the applicant sought for a
similar relief. After referring to various aspects it was
held in paragraph 9 that the petitioner is entitled to
reckon his service from about the period of his initial
advice of 1960 for the purpose of calculating pension
and that his service should be treated as un-interrupted
from the date of filling up of the 28th person as found in
the seniority list issued in 1972 and upto the date of his
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
retirement.
8. The plain terms of Rule 31 goes against the
contention of the applicant. But certain aspects
emanating from the facts discussed already show that
if the applicant was given a re-appointment in any
vacancy which could have been identified at the
appropriate time he would have acquired more length
of service. If that be so, according to us, the applicant's
case requires a special treatment and therefore, we are
of the view that by invoking Rule 39 of the KS & SSR,
appropriate orders can be issued by the Government.
9. Therefore, the Government will examine all aspects
and find out whether by applying Rule 39 of KS & SSR,
the rigour of Rule 31, Note 3 of Part III KSR can be
relaxed for the purpose of granting minimum pension
to the applicant. Appropriate orders will be passed after
hearing the applicant within three months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicant
will be free to file a proper representation in the matter.
The Transfer Application is disposed of accordingly."
13. In the absence of a challenge made in an original
petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
Annexure A1 order dated 03.11.2015 passed by the Tribunal
has attained finality. Therefore, the reasoning of Tribunal in
Ext.P4 order dated 16.08.2024, while disposing of O.A.No.2224
of 2021, whereby the 1st respondent State (1st petitioner herein)
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
is directed to consider afresh the representation dated
05.12.2015 made by the respondent-applicant, taking note of
the directions in Annexure A1 order dated 03.11.2015 of the
Tribunal in T.A.No.5031 of 2012, cannot be said to be either
perverse or patently illegal, warranting an interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
14. The learned Senior Government Pleader seeks some
more time to comply with the directions contained in Ext.P4
order dated 16.08.2024 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2224 of 2021.
15. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar
on the above aspect, we deem it appropriate to grant two
months' time from the date of this judgment to the petitioners
herein to comply with the directions contained in Ext.P4 order
dated 16.08.2024 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2224 of 2021.
In the result, this original petition fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed. Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MIN
O.P.(KAT)NO.248 OF 2025
2025:KER:81027
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 248/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2015 OF
THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN T.A NO.5031/2012
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER PREFERRED BY THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED
05.12.2015
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED
BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE FIRST
RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2019
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT VIDES FILE NO.HEALTH-
H2/56/2016-HEALTH DATED NIL
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO.31902/2017
DATED 06.12.2018
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER
NO.EF4/182/07/DHS DATED 29.06.2007 OF THE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.99/09/FIN
DATED 16.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE FINANCE
(PENSION B) DEPARTMENT
ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.3115/2016/H&FWD
DATED 18.11.2016
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO.2224/2021 ALONG
WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A5
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE FIRST PETITIONER ON 10.08.2022 ALONG
WITH ANNEXURE R1(A) TO R1(C)
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT ON 22.07.2024
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY
THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ON
16.08.2024
