Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala & Another vs C.B.Abdulrahimankutty on 14 October, 2025
RFA. No.299/2010
1
2025:KER:76139
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 22ND ASWINA, 1947
RFA NO. 299 OF 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2009 IN OS
NO.244 OF 2006 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
CHIEF SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
(CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEALDER SRI. JIBU T.S
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
C.B.ABDULRAHIMAN KUTTY
S/O. BHUKHARI, THOUFEEQ MANZIL,
EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE,
NOW RESIDING AT, "THOUFEEQ",
KUMVALATH PARAMBIL,
PANAYIKULAM, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)
SHRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.10.2025, THE COURT ON 14.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA. No.299/2010
2
2025:KER:76139
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2025
The State of Kerala, the defendant in O.S. No. 244/2006 on the file of
the Sub Court, Ernakulam is the appellant. (For the purpose of
convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before
the trial court).
2. The plaintiff filed the suit for damages. The plaintiff retired
from the Police Department as Deputy Superintendent on 30.11.1997.
He joined in service as Sub inspector on 1.1.1966, got promotion as
Circle Inspector of Police on 7.4.1974 and Deputy Superintendent of
Police on 4.4.1983 and Superintendent of Police with effect from
22.2.1995. He was eligible for consideration to the Indian Police
Service (IPS) in Kerala Cadre on completion of eight years of service as
Deputy Superintendent of Police. The procedure for such promotion is
regulated by Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion),
Regulation, 1955. The plaintiff had an unblemished service record and
secured nine rewards for outstanding performance in service. As per
2025:KER:76139
Rule 5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion),
Regulation, 1955, a meeting of the Select Committee shall be convened
before 31st March in every year for preparing the list of eligible officers.
Though the name of the plaintiff was included in the select list of 1995-
96, the committee had not convened in that year, in spite of request
given by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff preferred O.A.
No.1356/1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the
Tribunal directed the defendant to convene the meeting without delay.
3. According to the plaintiff, the Select Committee met on
26.12.1996 and prepared a select list including the name of the plaintiff
as the 6th person against seven existing vacancies. Because of the
callous and negligent delay caused by the defendant, the plaintiff did not
get promotion before his retirement. The plaintiff filed O.A.
No.155/1998 for declaration of his eligibility, in which the Tribunal
directed the defendant to take a final decision within a stipulated time.
However, the Secretary to the Government rejected the request for his
appointment in the Indian Police Service on the ground that the select
2025:KER:76139
list came into operation only on 22.7.1997 and before it was approved
by the UPSC, the plaintiff retired from service. According to the
plaintiff, if the select list was finalised in time, the plaintiff would have
been appointed in any of the existing vacancies and because of the delay,
he sustained a huge loss to his career. In the judgment in O.P
No.20741/2000, this court also found that the plaintiff lost promotion to
the cadre of IPS, only due to the latches and willful omission on the part
of the officers of the defendant. It was in this context, the plaintiff filed
the suit claiming compensation for the loss sustained by him.
4. The defendant filed a written statement admitting that there was
delay in convening the meeting of the Selection Committee during
1996-97 and also that the plaintiff's name was included in the select list
against the existing vacancies. The defendant also admits that the
plaintiff retired from service before the select list was approved by the
UPSC. As per order in O.P No.2074/2000, this Court directed the
Central Government to consider the granting of retirement benefits to
the plaintiff and accordingly, retirement benefits were given to the
2025:KER:76139
plaintiff. Further, according to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled
to get the difference in the salary from 1.11.1997 to November 2002.
Therefore, the defendant prayed for dismissing the suit.
5. The trial court framed three issues. The evidence in the case
consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A8. No evidence
was adduced by the defendant. After evaluating the evidence on record,
the trial court decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff to realise a sum of
Rs.6,84,828/- along with interest @6% per annum. Aggrieved by the
above judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant preferred
this appeal.
6. Now, the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial
court calls for any interference, in the light of the grounds
raised in the appeal?
7. Heard Sri. Jibu T.S, the learned Government Pleader for the
appellant/defendant and Sri. Peter Jose Christo, the learned counsel for
the respondent/plaintiff.
2025:KER:76139
8. Admittedly, the plaintiff joined the Police Department as Sub
Inspector on 1.1.1966. It is also admitted that he was promoted as
Circle Inspector of Police on 7.4.1974 and Deputy Superintendent of
Police on 4.4.1983 and Superintendent of Police with effect from
22.2.1995. He retired from the Police Department on 30.11.1997. The
plaintiff filed the suit for damages on the ground that due to the
negligent, callous and indifferent inaction on the part of the officials of
the defendant in convening the Select Committee for preparing the
select list of candidates eligible for IPS, he was denied promotion to the
IPS cadre. In the meantime, the plaintiff approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal as well as this Court. Though, finally the Select
Committee was convened and his name was included in the list as the 6 th
person out of the 7 existing vacancies in the year 1996-97, approval for
the list by the UPSC was received only after his retirement on
30.11.1997. According to the plaintiff, it was solely due to the delay, he
was denied promotion to the IPS cadre.
9. As per the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion)
2025:KER:76139
Regulation 1955, the meeting of the Select Committee shall be convened
before 31st March in every year for preparing the list of eligible officers.
In this case the defendant failed to convene the meeting of the Select
Committee, as required by the above Regulation and hence, the plaintiff
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. Only after the direction
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, finally the Select Committee
was convened on 22.7.1997. Though in the select list the name of the
plaintiff was included as the 6th person out of the existing seven
vacancies, he lost the opportunity as the approval of the UPSC was
received only after his retirement on 30.11.1997. Thereafter on the basis
of the representation given by the plaintiff, he was given notional
promotion and pension benefits alone and arrears of salary from
1.12.1997 to 30.11.2002, the period during which he would have been in
service if he was conferred with IPS, was denied.
10. The learned Government Pleader raised a contention that in
the light of Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, a civil
court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit. Section 28 of the
2025:KER:76139
Administrative Tribunals Act reads as follows:
"28. Exclusion of jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme
Court under article 136 of the Constitution.--On and from the
date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority
becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to
recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any Service
or post or service matters concerning members of any Service
or persons appointed to any Service or post, no court except--
(a) the Supreme Court; or
(b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other
authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (14 of 1947) or any other corresponding law for the
time being in force,
shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or
authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning
such recruitment or such service matters."
11. Section 14 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal reads as follows:
"14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central
Administrative Tribunal.--(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided
in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on
and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and
2025:KER:76139
authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts
except the Supreme Court in relation to--
(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-
India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post
under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the
defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian;
(b) all service matters concerning--
(i) a member of any All-India Service; or
(ii) a person [not being a member of an All-India Service or a
person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any civil service
of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or
(iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or
a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any defence
services or a post connected with defence,
and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian,
in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of
any local or other authority within the territory of India or under
the control of the Government of India or of any corporation or
society owned or controlled by the Government;
(c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the
affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service
or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause
(b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State
Government or any local or other authority or any corporation
2025:KER:76139
or society or other body, at the disposal of the Central
Government for such appointment.
[Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
declared that references to "Union" in this sub-section shall be
construed as including references also to a Union territory.]
(2) The Central Government may, by notification, apply with
effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the
provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within
the territory of India or under the control of the Government of
India and to corporations or societies owned or controlled by
Government, not being a local or other authority or corporation
or society controlled or owned by a State Government:
Provided that if the Central Government considers it
expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the
scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so
specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of,
or different categories under any class of, local or other
authorities or corporations or societies.
(3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central
Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date
with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to
any local or other authority or corporation or society, all the
jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before
that date by all courts except the Supreme Court in relation to--
(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any
2025:KER:76139
service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or
other authority or corporation or society; and
(b) all service matters concerning a person [other than a person
referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)]
appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of
such local or other authority or corporation or society and
pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such
affairs."
12. However, it is to be noted that this is a suit for damages for
the injuries sustained by the plaintiff as he was denied eligible
promotion to the IPS cadre due to the inaction of the defendant. Such a
relief will not come within the purview of section 14 referred above.
Therefore, the Tribunal cannot grant such a relief and only a civil court
can entertain and grant such a relief.
13. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. H. Mukherjee v. S.K. Bhargava
[AIR 1996 SC 1760], in support of his argument that the Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to grant such a relief. In the above decision, the Apex Court
held that a suit for damages for deliberately harassing the plaintiff by
passing vindictive and mala fide orders and proceedings will not come
2025:KER:76139
within the purview of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985. Though the facts are different, the present suit is also for
damages. Under no stretch of imagination, such a relief can be granted
by the Tribunal. Therefore, I find no merit in the above argument raised
by the learned Government Pleader that the present suit is not
maintainable.
14. As I have already noted above, the fact that the plaintiff lost
his promotion in the IPS cadre only due to the inaction of the officials of
the defendant and as such the plaintiff sustained huge loss in his career,
including financial loss. Finally, he was given only a notional
promotion and pension benefits and the salary for the lost period was
not given. The loss sustained by the plaintiff was quantified by the trial
court on the basis of Exhibit A9 letter received from the Accountant
General showing the pay particulars of two other IPS officers and also
on the basis of Exhibit A6 statement given by the plaintiff. Before this
Court also, the above quantum of compensation fixed by the trial court
was not disputed by the appellant. Therefore, I do not find any
2025:KER:76139
irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial
court so as to call for any interference. Therefore this appeal is liable to
be dismissed. Point answered accordingly.
15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs.
All pending interlocutory applications in the appeal shall stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
sou.
