[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shine Tess Jose vs State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2026:KER:10956
1
OP(KAT)No.486 of 2025
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 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 21ST MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 486 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 IN OA(EKM) NO.850 OF 2025 OF
THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS
1 SHINE TESS JOSE
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O P.J.JOSE, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, AMBALLOOR P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682315
2 SHARI JOSE
AGED 56 YEARS
D/O P.J.JOSE, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, AMBALLOOR P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682315
BY ADVS.
SHRI.A.C.KURIAKOSE
SRI.K.G.SARATHKUMAR
SMT.SANDRA SUSAN KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DGE, DPI JUNCTION, JAGATHY P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,, PIN - 695014
2026:KER:10956
2
OP(KAT)No.486 of 2025
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION
II FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682030
4 THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
O/O AEO, THRIPPUNITHURA P.O, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682301
5 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
O/O ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695001
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
2.2.2026, THE COURT ON 10.2.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:10956
3
OP(KAT)No.486 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicants in O.A.(EKM) No.850 of 2025 on the file of
the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam
(the 'Tribunal' for short) filed this original petition, invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16.09.2025
passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. The petitioners are unmarried daughters of late P.J
Jose, who died on 13.12.2013 and late M.T Aley, who died on
13.10.2021. The father of the petitioners was a Headmaster, and
the mother was a P.D. Teacher. According to the petitioners, after
the death of their mother, they applied for family pension, and the
respondents allowed family pension of their mother alone to the
2nd petitioner, which, according to them, was without following the
statutory provisions. The petitioners pleaded that they are entitled
to receive a monthly pension at the rate of Rs.28,740 instead of
Rs.10,680/-, which is the combined family pension of the parents
of the petitioners. Though the petitioners submitted individual
applications dated 28.04.2023, which are marked as Annexures
2026:KER:10956
A4 and A5 for getting family pension of their deceased parents, by
Annexure A7 communication dated 11.03.2024, the 4th
respondent rejected Annexure A4 application of the 1st petitioner.
By Annexure A6 intimation slip dated 13.11.2023, the 5 th
respondent authorised the sanction of family pension of the
deceased mother alone to the 2nd petitioner. In Annexure A7
intimation, the 4th respondent stated that the family pension
application could be resubmitted if orders are obtained. The
petitioners submitted Annexure A8 representation dated
11.09.2024 to the 4th respondent to reconsider Annexure A7
rejection of the family pension application made by the 1 st
petitioner. However, Annexure A8 representation was rejected by
the 4th respondent by Annexure A9 intimation dated 17.10.2024.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed O.A.(EKM)No. 850 of 2025 before
the Tribunal, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, contending that Annexure A8
representation was arbitrarily rejected. In the original application,
the petitioners have sought a direction to respondents 3 to 5 to
fix and grant family pension due to the petitioners with interest
from 01.11.2021 onwards.
2026:KER:10956
3. By the impugned Ext.P2 order dated 16.09.2025, the
Tribunal disposed of the original application. Paragraphs 5, 6 and
the last paragraph of that order read thus:
"5. Rule 90(7)(b) of Part III KSR reads as follows:
"(7) The contributory family pension will be admissible:-
(b) In the case of unmarried son/daughter till he/she
attains the age of 25 years or marriage or starts earning
his/her livelihood, whichever is earlier. In the event of
death of father and mother, who were both Government
employees/pensioners, the children below the age of 25
years will be eligible to draw two family pension till they
attain the age of 25 years or getting married or employed
whichever is earlier subject to the following limits, provided
both the parents were governed by these rules:-
(a) If both family pensions are in the higher rate or
if one family pension is in the higher rate and the
other in the normal rate, the total of the two shall not
exceed 50% of the highest pay in the State scale i.e.,
50% of Rs.1,20,000 viz., Rs.60,000."
(b) If both family Pensions are in the normal rate, the
total of the two shall not exceed 30% of the highest
pay in the State Scale, i.e., 30% of Rs. 1,20,000 viz.,
Rs.36,000.
xxxx xxxx xxxx".
From the above it is clear that two family pensions would
be admissible only in the event of children below the age of
25 years. The condition for grant of two family pension is,
2026:KER:10956
either they should not have attained the age of 25 years or
should not have got remarried or employed, whichever is
earlier. Once it is an admitted fact that the applicants
crossed the age of 25 years even at the time of death of
their father and mother, the question of grant of two family
pensions does not arise in the case of the applicants.
6. However, it is seen that the applicants were eligible to
opt the higher rate of pension. In the present case it is seen
that family pension is being granted on the basis of the
service rendered by the mother, who was only a
P.D.Teacher. In case family pension in respect of the father
who was a Headmaster was given, the applicants would be
eligible for family pension at a higher rate. In the
circumstances, it will be open to the applicants to submit an
option to have the family pension of the father and in the
event of such an option, which shall be submitted within a
period of one month from today, the respondents shall see
that the family pension as admissible in the case of the
father is granted to the applicants 1 or 2, as the case may
be, in accordance with paragraph 3(e) of Annexure R4(a),
which shali be done within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of the option from the applicants.
The Original Application is disposed of as above".
4. Being aggrieved by the non-granting of combination of
two family pensions of the petitioners' deceased parents, the
petitioners approached this Court with the present original petition
impugning the order of the Tribunal. In the original petition, apart
2026:KER:10956
from seeking the setting aside of Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal, the
petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the portions of
Ext.P4 Government Order dated 23.09.2016 which limits the
combining of the family pensions of the deceased parents to
unmarried daughters below the age of 25 years as null and void;
a declaration that the portion of paragraph 3(e) of Ext.P4 which
limits to drawing of only one pension by the unmarried daughters
above the age of 25 years as null and void; and issue appropriate
directions to the 4th respondent to revise the sanctioned family
pension, by combining the family pension of the deceased parents
of the petitioners without delay.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the Tribunal passed the impugned order by relying on Rule
90(7)(b) of Part III Kerala Service Rules ('KSR' for short), which
is arbitrary and discriminatory. Therefore, the petitioners have
challenged the Rule itself in this original petition.
7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that the petitioners cannot widen the scope
2026:KER:10956
of the original application by adding more grounds of challenge
against the impugned order in the original application, in an
original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the impugned order, the Tribunal has granted the relief entitled
to by the petitioners. Therefore, no interference is needed to the
impugned order.
8. 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.
9. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd
[(2001) 8 SCC 97], the Apex Court held thus;
"The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction
by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India
is examined and explained in number of decisions of this
Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a
duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals
within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do
duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The
High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to
correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within
the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or
2026:KER:10956
tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the
orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of
serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court
does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It
is also well settled that the High Court while acting under
this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court
or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the
subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent
on the fact of the record. The High Court can set aside or
ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if
there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so
perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to
such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to."
10. 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
2026:KER:10956
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
11. 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 duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
12. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in
2026:KER:10956
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.
13. 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.
14. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
2026:KER:10956
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 where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
15. In paragraph 5 of the impugned Ext.P2 order, the
Tribunal extracted Rule 90(7)(b) of Part III KSR. The Tribunal
noted that, as per the said Rule, two family pensions would be
admissible only in the case of children below the age of 25 years
or who have not remarried or employed. In the instant case, the
2026:KER:10956
petitioners had admittedly crossed the age of 25 years at the time
of the death of their parents. Noting that if the family pension was
granted in respect of the father, who was a Headmaster, the
petitioners would be eligible for the family pension at a higher
rate, the Tribunal issued necessary directions in the impugned
order.
16. In the original application, the petitioners have not
challenged Ext.P4 order of the Government dated 23.09.2016,
which they attempted to challenge in this original petition. The
petitioners are now contending that Rule 90(7) (b) of Part III KSR
is discriminatory and arbitrary. But no challenge against the Rule
was raised in the original application. It is trite that in an original
petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
scope of the original application cannot be widened by adding
additional pleadings that were not there in the original application.
17. A Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment
reported in T.Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala represented by
the Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry
Department [2014 (1) KLT 186] clarified that the visitorial
jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India cannot be
2026:KER:10956
extended to widen the scope of an original petition to include
reliefs not claimed and grounds not raised before the Tribunal. This
position is again reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in
Sijo Thomas v. State of Kerala [2024 (4) KHC 397].
18. Therefore, the challenge now raised by the petitioners
in this original petition against Ext.P4 order of the Government
and also against the provisions in Part III of KSR, which was
neither pleaded nor raised in the original application, is liable to
be rejected.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that
the impugned Ext.P2 order is suffering from any illegality or
perversity which warrants interference by exercising supervisory
jurisdiction.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2026:KER:10956
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 486 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
NO.74869808 DT.17/01/2023 ISSUED BY THE
KANAYANNOOR TAHASILDAR.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
NO.SR.NO.K.DIS./17074 DT.07/10/2022 ISSUED
BY THE KANAYANNOOR TAHASILDAR
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE
NO.SR.NO.K.DIS./17073 DT.07/10/2022 ISSUED
BY THE KANAYANNOORTAHASILDAR
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR FAMILY
PENSION DT.28/04/2023 OF THE 1ST APPLICANT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR FAMILY
PENSION DT.28/04/2023 OF THE 2NDAPPLICANT.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION SLIP NO.P-
8/2/115018/ DT.13/11/2023 OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
AEOTPT/1082/2023-B DT.11/03/2024 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
AEOTPT/1082/2023-B DT.11/03/2024 OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION
NO.AEOTPT/1053/2024-B DT.17/10/2024 OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT
Annexure R4(a) TRUE COPY OF G. O(P) NO: 140/2016/FIN DATED
23/09/2016 ISSUED BY THE FINANCE (PENSION-
B) DEPARTMENT.
Annexure R4(b) TRUE COPY OF G. O(P) NO: 425/2007/FIN DT:
14/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE FINANCE (PENSION-
B) DEPARTMENT
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.
OA(EKM) NO.850 OF 2025 ANNEXURE'S ARE
SEPARATELY UPLOADED AND MARKED
Exhibit P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ON 16TH
SEPTEMBER,2025 IN OA(EKM) NO.850 OF 2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE THE KERALA SERVICE (8TH
AMENDMENT) RULES, 2012, G.O. (P)
NO.226/2012/FIN DATED, THINNANANTHAPURAM,
L8TH APRIL, 2012, PUBLISHED BY GAZETTE
2026:KER:10956
NOTIFICATION NO. S. R. O. NO. 263/2012
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO.140/2016/FIN
DT.23/09/2016
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.427/2014 FIN DATED
30-09-2014
