State Of Kerala vs Dr. Asha.S
2025 Latest Caselaw 10219 Ker

Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Dr. Asha.S on 29 October, 2025

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

                                      1




OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025                                  2025:KER:80591
                   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 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1947

                           OP(KAT) NO. 409 OF 2025

           AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2025 IN OA NO.1102 OF 2024 OF

KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 IN OA:

       1        STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
                SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695001

       2        THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
                FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695001

       3        THE CHIEF MANAGER (SPARK)
                SPARK PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, DPC BUILDING (FIRST
                FLOOR), KERALA UNIVERSITY SENATE CAMPUS, PALAYAM,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695034

       4        THE MANAGER (SPARK)
                SPARK PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, DPC BUILDING (FIRST
                FLOOR), KERALA UNIVERSITY SENATE CAMPUS, PALAYAM,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695034

       5        THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
                DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695011

       6        THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
                GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
                MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN
                - 695011
                                      2




OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025                                 2025:KER:80591

       7        THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E),
                OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695001


                BY ADV A.J VARGHESE SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT IN OA:

       1        DR. ASHA.S,
                AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.DR.K.N. MOHANLAL, RETIRED PROFESSOR
                OF PHARMACOLOGY, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011, RESIDING AT SURABHI,
                DGRA - 5, DOCTORS GARDENS, ULLOOR, MEDICAL
                COLLEGE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA. 695 011

       2        THE UNION OF INDIA,
                REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY
                OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI,, PIN - 110001


                BY ADVS.
                SHRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
                SHRI.PRAVEEN K.S., CGC
                SMT.V.S.RAKHEE
                SMT.K.J.GISHA
                SMT.AKSHAYA S.NAIR
                SHRI.JAYAKUMAR C.
                SHRI.SAJU JOHN



        THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
23.10.2025, THE COURT ON 29.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                        3




OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025                                  2025:KER:80591

                                  JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents 1 to 7 in O.A.No.1102 of 2024 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 the interim order dated

16.06.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the

1st respondent retired from service as Professor of Pharmacology,

Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, on

31.05.2021. Pay and allowances of Medical College Teachers were

revised with effect from 01.01.2016 as per Annexure-A1 order

dated 11.09.2020. Annexure-A2 order dated 26.02.2021 was

issued by the Government, scheduling the payment of arrears in

4 instalments. Accordingly, the Accountant General issued

Annexure-A3 pay slip to the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent

could not encash the arrears since the Government subsequently

issued Annexure-A4 Order dated 16.08.2023, amending the pay

revision order to the effect that the revised pay and allowances

OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025 2025:KER:80591

will be granted in cash from 01.10.2020. Therefore, 1st respondent

has been denied arrears of pay for the period from 01.01.2016 to

30.09.2020. The 1st respondent further states that the State

Government employees, who are not covered by the UGC Scheme,

National Medical Commission norms, etc., were given arrears of

pay, on pay revision, from the date on which the pay revision was

given effect to. The denial of arrears of pay to the 1st respondent

from 01.01.2016 to 30.09.2020 is illegal, arbitrary and

expropriatory, offending Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the

Constitution of India. With these averments, the 1st respondent

approached the Tribunal with the original application filed under

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the

following reliefs:

"i) set aside the restrictive clause in Annexure-A4 to the effect that revised pay and allowance will be granted in cash from 01.10.2020 only.

ii) declare that the applicant is entitled to arrears of pay and allowances arising out of pay revision ordered as per Annexure-A1 for the period from 01.01.2016 to 30.09.2020 with interest thereon.

iii) direct the respondents to disburse the applicant arrears of pay and allowances arising out of Annexure-A1 pay revision order for the period from 01.01.2016 to 30.09.2020

OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025 2025:KER:80591

in lump, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, forthwith".

2.1. In the original application, the 1st respondent has

sought an interim order directing the petitioners 1 and 2 to release

the pay revision arrears of the 1st respondent from 01.01.2016

onwards, forthwith, pending disposal of the original application.

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

21.01.2025 was filed before the Tribunal opposing the reliefs

sought by the 1st respondent. To that reply statement, the 1st

respondent filed a rejoinder dated 07.04.2025, producing

therewith Annexure A6 document. On 16.06.2025, when the

original application came up for consideration, the Tribunal passed

the impugned order, which reads as under:

"Pursuant to the order passed on 02.06.2025 directing the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to why the applicant is discriminated when two instalments of arrears of pay consequent to Pay Revision is already ordered to the Government employees. Learned Government Pleader submits that financial assistance from the UGC / AICTE is not yet received.

2. The respondents themselves stated that assistance from UGC or AICTE is not available for the Faculties in Ayurveda Medical College and Homeopathy Medical College. Therefore waiting for their assistance is totally unsustainable and

OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025 2025:KER:80591

irrelevant, when it is an admitted fact that no assistance is received from the Central Government towards the pay and allowances of the Faculties in Ayurveda Medical Education. The order dated 21.01.2023 relied on by the learned Government Pleader also cannot have any relevance.

3. In view of the fact that the State Government Employees have already been granted two instalments of pay revision arrears as per Annexure A6 order, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to see that the first 2 instalments of arrears of pay due to the applicant from 01.01.2016 onwards is paid within a period of 2 months from today.

Post after 2 months."

2.3. Being aggrieved by the above interim order, the State

and its officials have filed this original petition contending that

while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal failed to consider

the facts in their entirety.

3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the

petitioners, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the

learned Central Government Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

4. During the course of arguments, the Senior Government

Pleader would place reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in

Bank of Maharashtra v. Race Shipping and Transport

Company Private Ltd. [(1995) 3 SCC 257] and

OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025 2025:KER:80591

Commissioner/Secretary to Government Health and

Medical Edu. Deptt, Civil Sectt., Jammu v. Dr.Ashok Kumar

Kohli [(1995) Supp 4 SCC 214]. The learned Senior

Government Pleader would submit that by way of interim relief,

the Tribunal has granted the final relief itself, and hence, the

interference of this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction is

warranted.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st

respondent would argue that the entire reliefs sought in the

original application were not granted by the Tribunal by way of

interim relief and hence no interference is warranted on the said

order.

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.

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

OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025 2025:KER:80591

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

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

OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025 2025:KER:80591

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

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

OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025 2025:KER:80591

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

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

OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025 2025:KER:80591

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. In Race Shipping and Transport Company Private

Ltd. [(1995) 3 SCC 257] the Apex Court reminded that the time

and again the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of granting

interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in

the petition for no better reason than that a prima facie case has

been made out without being concerned about the balance of

convenience, the public interest and a host of other

considerations. This view is reiterated in Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli

[(1995) Supp 4 SCC 214].

13. Viewed in the light of the judgments referred to supra,

we are of the opinion that the impugned interim order dated

16.06.2025, passed by the Tribunal without considering the rival

contentions of the parties and in effect granting the final relief

sought in the original application by way of interim order, is liable

to be set aside. However, in view of the pendency of the original

application, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of

the matter.

OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025 2025:KER:80591

In the result, the original petition is allowed by setting aside

the impugned interim order dated 16.06.2025, passed by the

Tribunal in O.A.No.1102 of 2024; however, without expressing

anything on merits about the rival contentions raised by the

parties in the original application.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

sks                                MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE





OP(KAT)No.409 of 2025                                  2025:KER:80591

                        APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 409/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1               TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) NO.54/2020/H&FWD
                          DATED 11.09.2020 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT
                          EXTRACT OF THE ANNEXURE THERETO
Annexure A2               TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO.41/2021/FIN DATED
                          26.02.2021 OF 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A3               TRUE COPY OF PAY/LEAVE SALARY SLIP OF THE

APPLICANT DATED 01.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF G.O(MS) NO.20/2023/H&FWD DATED 16.08.2023 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EB4/930847/2024/GMCT DATED 29.05.2024 OF THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P) NO.38/2025/FIN DATED 29.03.2025 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO.1102/2024 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER ON 28.01.2025 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ON 08.04.2025 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.267/2025 DATED 05.02.2025 FOR DECLARATION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON 2ND RESPONDENT (8TH RESPONDENT IN O.A) Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P)NO.12/2023/FIN DATED 21.01.2023 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS)NO.31/2023/FIN DATED 01/03/2023 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.06.2025 PASSED BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED ORIGINAL APPLICATION