Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Saji.V.S on 19 September, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.144 of 2025
2025:KER:70825
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 28TH BHADRA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 144 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2024 IN OA NO.244 OF 2020 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO FINANCE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN -
695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES,DIRECTORATE OF TREASURIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695036
3 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
4 THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER,
DISTRICT TREASURY, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 686002
BY ADV B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
SAJI.V.S,AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.SIMON.V, NEVIN NIVAS, ST.THOMAS
NAGAR 9, MANGAD, KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM, (SENIOR ACCOUNTANT,
DISTRICT TREASURY, KOLLAM, PIN: 686 002), KERALA, PIN -
691015
BY ADV.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(KAT)No.144 of 2025
2025:KER:70825
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The respondents in O.A.No.244 of 2020 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 order dated 08.11.2024
passed by the Tribunal in the original application.
2. The respondent entered service as a Junior Accountant in
the year 2002. He was promoted as Treasurer as per Annexure A1
order dated 25.07.2005 of the Joint Director of Treasuries. By
Annexure A2 order dated 08.02.2007 of the Joint Director of
Treasuries, he was promoted as Senior Accountant and allowed to
continue as Treasurer. He was further promoted to the cadre of
Selection Grade Accountant on 06.11.2017 by Annexure A3 order
of that date. According to the respondent, the Special Rules of the
Treasury Department provide that the Treasurer post is a
promotion post and therefore he is fully eligible to get 2 nd time-
bound higher grade in the post of Treasurer as per the 1997 pay
2025:KER:70825
revision order, treating the post of Treasurer as a promotion post.
But the Accountant General raised objection against the said
benefit enjoyed by the Treasurers, contending that as per the
order dated 01.12.2003 of the Joint Director of Treasuries, it was
held that the persons sanctioned 2 nd higher grade on completion
of 8 years of service in the post of Treasurer are eligible for 10
years higher grade, considering Treasurer as the entry post. The
affected persons filed several writ petitions before this Court
challenging the legality of the said order dated 01.12.2003 and
the consequent orders for refixation and recovery. But all those
writ petitions were dismissed, and in the consequent writ appeals,
the Division Bench of this Court passed a reference order on
22.03.2010 to be answered by a Larger Bench in view of divergent
findings. Accordingly, all the writ appeals were placed before the
Full Bench of this Court. In the case of the respondent also,
Annexure A7 audit objection was raised in the year 2019, based
on the departmental order dated 01.12.2003 of the Joint Director
of Treasuries stating that option to the post of Treasurer has been
stopped and as per order dated 08.02.2013 of the Director of
2025:KER:70825
Treasuries the pay of Accountants who have become Treasurers
after 01.12.2003 will be regulated according to their cadre post
with effect from the date on which they became Senior
Accountant/Selection Grade Accountant. By Annexure A8
judgment dated 10.01.2020 in W.A.No.996 of 2009 and
connected cases, the Full Bench of this Court answered the
reference, declaring that the post of Treasurer is not a promotion
post and that, for the purposes of pay revision orders, opting for
appointment as Treasurer has to be seen as an appointment to an
entry post. Contending that, even though the said declaration of
law is against the claim of the appellants in the writ appeals, the
Full Bench by following the decision in State of Punjab and
others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334]
made clear that the Government shall not take any steps for
recovery of monetary claims already extended and that the
benefits so granted shall be reckoned for the purpose of the
service and retirement benefits and the respondent is similarly
situated, he filed the original application before the Tribunal
challenging Annexure A7 audit objection seeking the following
2025:KER:70825
reliefs:
"(i) Declare that going by the direction Annexure A8,
recovery of the monetary claims already extended to the
applicant is not permissible and further the benefits so
granted to the applicant is also to be reckoned for the
purpose of the service and retirement benefits;
(ii) issue an order setting aside Annexure A7 audit objection
and the consequent steps to effect refixation and recovery,
in view of the direction in Annexure A8 judgment".
3. In the original application, the 1 st petitioner filed a reply
statement dated 09.02.2023 opposing the reliefs sought therein.
Paragraph 8 of that reply statement read thus:
"8. On examining the service records of the applicant, it is
clear that the applicant has not been granted Time Bound
Higher Grade on completion of 8 years in the post of
Treasurer. Hence there is no question of recovery of the
excess pay arising. In the Judgment of the full bench of the
Hon'ble High Court (Annexure A8) it is clarified that the
appointment of Treasurer is not in the direct line of
promotion to the post of Junior Accountants in the Treasury
Department. It is also ordered in the above Judgment that
the State Government shall not take any steps for recovery
of the monitory benefit already extended to the applicants
by way of granting higher grade in the post of Treasurer on
completion of 8 years. Since the applicant has not been
2025:KER:70825
granted the above grade no question of the recovery arising.
But obeying the Special Rules his pay should be regulated
in the scale of pay of the original post".
4. By the impugned order dated 08.11.2024, the Tribunal
allowed the original application. Paragraph 14 of that order read
thus:
"14. We find that after the judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court in Annexure A8 the legal position is settled and needs
no further adjudication. The only question left to be decided
is regarding the applicant's claim for protection from
recovery ordered by the Hon'ble High Court in Annexure A8
judgment. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, the
applicant was not a party to Annexure A8 judgment and no
recovery is ordered on sanctioning of 8 years time bound
higher grade. But at the same time, we find that the audit
objection was raised way back in 2019 and the Original
Application has been pending before this Tribunal for the last
more than 4 years. Moreover, due to the series of the
litigations before the Hon'ble High Court and before this
Tribunal, no steps were taken for recovery of the amount
from the applicant. In the facts and circumstances, we find
that it is in the interest of justice to direct the 2 nd
respondent not to make any recovery from the applicant at
this point of time. But it will be open to the respondents to
re-fix and regulate the scale of pay of the applicant as per
Rules. In view of the fact that the legal issue involved was
2025:KER:70825
pending before this Tribunal for a long time and also in view
of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Refiq Masih's case reported in (2015) 4 SCС 334, we direct
the 2nd respondent not to make any recovery from the
applicant for the benefits already granted and which are
referred in Annexure A7 audit objection".
5. On 03.04.2025, when this original petition came up for
admission, this Court admitted the same and issued notice by
speed post to the respondent. By the order dated 03.04.2025, this
Court stayed all further proceedings in pursuance to the impugned
order of the Tribunal for a period of two months. It was also made
clear that no recovery shall be effected based on the stay. The said
interim order has been continued from time to time.
6. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the
learned counsel for the respondent.
7. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that in Annexure A8 judgment, the Full Bench of this Court held
that the post of Treasurer is not filled up by promotion in terms of
the relevant special rules and is liable to be construed as by
transfer appointment. It was held in Annexure A8 judgment that
the grant of time-bound higher grade is liable to be treated as an
2025:KER:70825
entry post for the purpose of the grant of the said benefit. In view
of Annexure A8 judgment, the question as to whether the
respondent can claim the benefit of time-bound higher grade as
promotion and consequently eschew any consequences arising
therefrom has become an open and shut case. When the Full
Bench in Annexure A8 judgment confined the benefit of that
judgment to the litigating parties therein alone, the Tribunal
diluted the effect of the declaration of law as laid down in Annexure
A8. After arguing for some time, to a query made by this Court,
the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that since
the Tribunal failed to consider this crucial aspect raised in
paragraph 8 of the reply statement filed by the Government in the
light of Annexure A8 judgment, the petitioners intend to file a
review petition before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the
respondent, though, supported the impugned order of the
Tribunal, further submitted that if this Court inclines to dispose of
this original petition granting the aforesaid liberty to the
petitioners, the legal contentions raised by the parties may be left
open to be decided by the Tribunal.
2025:KER:70825
8. While going through paragraph 8 of the reply
statement dated 09.02.2023 filed by the petitioners before the
Tribunal and the impugned order, we notice that the contentions
raised by the petitioners in that reply statement that since
respondent herein has not been granted time bound higher grade
on completion of 8 years in the post of Treasurer as in the case of
Annexure A8 judgment, no question of recovery arising from the
respondent, was not considered by the Tribunal.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record
and the submissions made at the Bar, as discussed above, we
deem it appropriate to dispose of this original petition, without
expressing anything on the legal and factual contentions raised by
the parties, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the
Tribunal with a review petition as submitted by the learned Senior
Government Pleader. In view of granting liberty to the petitioners
to approach the Tribunal with a review petition, in order to protect
the interest of the respondent, we make it clear that the interim
order granted by this Court against recovery as per the order
dated 03.04.2025 which was continued from time to time will be
2025:KER:70825
in force for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that the petitioners
are entitled to seek exemption from the operation of the period of
limitation of the period they were bonafide prosecuting this
Original Petition before this Court, i.e, from the date of
presentation of this original petition on 14.03.2025 till the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, while filing the review
petition before the Tribunal.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2025:KER:70825
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 144/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. B2-107/2005 DATED
25.07.2005 OF JOINT DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF
DOCUMENT
Annexure A2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2-105/2007 DATED
08.02.2007 OF JOINT DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF
DOCUMENT.
Annexure A3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5/103/17 DATED
06.11.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B6/6902/2012
DATED 08.02.2013 THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 16.10.2014
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1434/2009 AND CONNECTED
CASES
Annexure A6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.7290/15/FIN DATED
10.08.2015
Annexure A7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF AUDIT
OBJECTION RAISED IN THE APPLICANT'S CASE
DURING THE DEPARTMENTAL AUDIT HELD IN THE
YEAR 2019 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF DOCUMENT
Annexure A8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 10.01.2020
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1434/2009 AND CONNECTED
CASES
Exhibit P1 PHOTO COPY OF THE O.A NO.244/2020 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES A1 TO A8
Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER IN O.A. 244/2020 ON 13.02.2023
Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN O.A.
244/2020 BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 08.11.2024
