Anandapadmanabhan Nair C.K vs State Of Kerala on 9 March, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Anandapadmanabhan Nair C.K vs State Of Kerala on 9 March, 2026

The applicant in O.A.No.1142 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, ('the Tribunal' for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P5 order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioner-applicant was sanctioned with family pension with effect from 01.03.2006, the date of death of his wife, Smt. Geetha, who voluntarily retired from the office of the 3 rd respondent District Registrar, Idukki, while working as a Senior Clerk. Later, the petitioner-applicant married one Smt.Vijayakumari Amma on 17.08.2007, and on his request, the family pension was stopped with effect from the date of marriage. The petitioner-applicant pleads that Smt.Vijayakumari Amma deserted him and thereafter filed M.C.No.271 of 2014 before the Family Court, Nedumangad, claiming maintenance from the petitioner-applicant. As per Annexure A1 order dated 23.06.2015 in the MC, the Family Court held that Smt.Vijayakumari Amma is OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025 4 2026:KER:19843 not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner-applicant. Pursuant to Annexure A1 order, the petitioner-applicant filed Annexure A2 application dated 23.08.2016 before respondents 3 and 4 to restore the family pension. As per Annexure A3 order dated 09.11.2016, the 3rd respondent ordered that the application of the petitioner-applicant for family pension is allowable and sanction was accorded to reinstate his family pension with effect from 9/2007, subject to the verification of the Accountant General. The 3rd respondent has issued Annexure A4 consequential order dated 15.02.2017.

2.1. By Annexure A5 letter dated 08.05.2017, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner-applicant that his case is a special case and the matter has been taken up with the Government for clarification. Thereafter, by Annexure A6 letter dated 14.09.2017, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner that the finance department of the Government has intimated that as per Rule 90(7) of part III of Kerala Service Rules ('KSR' for short), eligibility of the family pension in the case of a widow/widower ceases from the date of remarriage and as per existing Rules, there is no provision to reinstate family pension in such cases and OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025 5 2026:KER:19843 that the request of the petitioner-applicant to reinstate the family pension cannot be considered.

2.2. Aggrieved by Annexure A6 letter, the petitioner- applicant approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.(EKM)No.2728 of 2017. Meanwhile, he filed O.P.No.54 of 2015 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, for the annulment of his marriage with Smt.Vijayakumari Amma. By Annexure A7 judgment dated 25.02.2022, the Family Court declared the marriage of the petitioner-applicant with Smt.Vijayakumari Amma as null and void. Again, the petitioner-applicant submitted Annexure A8 and A9 representations dated 07.06.2023 before respondents 1 and 2, seeking restoration of family pension. The 2nd respondent, by Annexure A10 letter dated 12.07.2023, informed that the request for restoration of family pension cannot be considered as per the existing Rules. By Annexure A13 order dated 27.10.2023, the Tribunal disposed of O.A.(EKM)No.2728 of 2017, directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexure A8 representation, untrammelled by the decision taken by the Finance Department as per Annexures A6 and A10. It was also directed that while taking such a decision, due regard will be given OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025 6 2026:KER:19843 to the decision of the Tribunal reflected in Annexure A11 order dated 16.07.2014 in O.A.No.48 of 2013 which is a case wherein the marriage of the applicant therein was declared as null and void by the competent Family Court and therefore was granted family pension by Annexure A12 order dated 23.12.2016 by the Government. Pursuant to Annexure A13 order, the petitioner- applicant was heard on 12.12.2023; however, his claim was rejected by Annexure A14 order dated 24.05.2024 issued by the 1st respondent. Being aggrieved the petitioner-applicant approached the Tribunal by filing the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexures A6, A10 and A14; and declare that the petitioner-applicant is entitled to family pension with effect from September, 2007, as per Rule 90(6)(b) and 90(7)(a) of Part III of KSR, in view of the declaration of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, as per Annexure A7 judgment and direct the respondents to restore the family pension with effect from September, 2007, of the petitioner-applicant and disburse the same with arrears within a time limit fixed by the Tribunal.

3. In the original application, on behalf of the 2 nd OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025 7 2026:KER:19843 respondent, a reply statement dated 23.08.2024 was filed opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioner-applicant. The 1st respondent adopted the reply statement filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent by filing a memorandum dated 23.10.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner-applicant filed a rejoinder dated 22.02.2025 in the original application.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, by impugned Ext.P5 order, the Tribunal dismissed the original application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner- applicant is now before this Court with this original petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would submit that by Annexure A7 judgment of the Family Court in O.P.No.54 of 2015, the marriage of the petitioner-applicant with Smt.Vijayakumari Amma was declared as null and void, which will relate back to the date of the marriage. In such circumstances, there was no legal relationship between the petitioner-applicant and the said Smt.Vijayakumari Amma as husband and wife, and hence the finding of the Tribunal is illegal, which warrants OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025 8 2026:KER:19843 interference by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction. In fact, Smt.Vijayakumari Amma had a subsisting marriage at the time of her marriage with the petitioner-applicant, which was suppressed, and hence as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the marriage solemnised between the petitioner-applicant and Smt.Vijayakumari Amma was not a valid one. The Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the contentions of the petitioner-applicant and therefore held that his case cannot be equated with that of the case of Smt.Ruby.P.Jacob, wherein the Tribunal had issued Annexure A11 order in favour of Smt.Ruby.P.Jacob.

7. On the other hand, the learned senior Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner-applicant remarried Smt.Vijayakumari Amma in the year 2007, and it is on his request that the family pension was stopped. He had no case that his marriage with Smt.Vijayakumari Amma was a void marriage, till Smt.Vijayakumari Amma filed a petition for maintenance before the Family Court. On remarriage, the petitioner-applicant ceased to be a part of the family of the deceased employee, and he cannot claim the same status after annulling the remarriage. Moreover, in the instant case, the annulment of the marriage of the OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025 9 2026:KER:19843 petitioner-applicant with Smt.Vijayakumari Amma is not from the date of marriage, but from 25.02.2022. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal.

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 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 confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.

OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025 10 2026:KER:19843

10. 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.

11. 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 OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025 11 2026:KER:19843 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025 12 2026:KER:19843 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.

14. The petitioner-applicant herein is claiming family pension in respect of his deceased wife, who was an employee in the office of the 3rd respondent. Admittedly, on his application, the pension once granted was stopped on the ground of his remarriage with one Smt.Vijayakumari Amma in the year 2007. Under Rule 90(7)(a) of Part III of KSR, family pension is payable to a widower only till his remarriage. The petitioner-applicant has later raised OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025 13 2026:KER:19843 the claim for restoration of family pension, contending that his marriage with Smt.Vijayakumari Amma was declared as null and void by the Family Court in Annexure A7 judgment dated 22.05.2022. To support his contentions, the petitioner-applicant relied on Annexure A11 order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.48 of 2013, wherein a dependent daughter whose marriage was later declared as null and void was ordered to be paid family pension by the Tribunal. But while going through Annexure A11 order, we notice that the annulment of marriage therein was from the date of marriage itself and not from a future date. Moreover, as found by the Tribunal, the claimant in Annexure A11 order, who is the daughter of the deceased employee, will continue to be a member of the family whether she remarries or not. Therefore, there is no incorrectness in the finding of the Tribunal that the facts of Annexure A11 order cannot be equated with the case of the petitioner-applicant.

15. When Annexure A7 judgment specifically states that the annulment of the marriage of the petitioner-applicant with Smt.Vijayakumari Amma was with effect from 25.02.2022, the Tribunal cannot modify the said date and state that the said OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025 14 2026:KER:19843 annulment will operate from the date of marriage onwards. As found by the Tribunal, immediately on getting remarried, the petitioner-applicant ceases to be a member of his 1st wife's family, since his relationship with the family of his 1st wife is only through marriage and not through blood relation.

16. Having considered the pleadings and materials placed on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no illegality or incorrectness in the findings of the Tribunal that the petitioner is not entitled to the family pension of his deceased wife in view of the provisions contained in Rule 90(7)(a) of Part III of KSR.

Therefore, the original petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

                                  MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
nak
 OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025                 15                2026:KER:19843




                  APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 279 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1             TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY
                        COURT,   NEDUMANGAD   DATED   23.06.2015   IN
                        M.C.NO.271 OF 2018.
Annexure A2             TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.08.2016
                        SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD
                        RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3             TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E1.1219/16 DATED
                        09.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4             TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E1.1219/16 DATED
                        15.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure A5             TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.P2/PEN A/954/HH/04-05
                        DATED   08.05.2017    ISSUED   BY   THE   4TH
                        RESPONDENT.
Annexure A6             TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.P2/PENA/954/HH/04-05
                        DATED   14.09.2017    ISSUED   BY   THE   4TH
                        RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7             TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE
                        HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
                        DATED 25.02.2022 IN O.P.NO.54 OF 2015 AND
                        O.P.NO.150 OF 2017.
Annexure A8             TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 07.06.2023
                        SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND
                        RESPONDENT.
Annexure A9             TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 07.06.2023
                        SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND
                        RESPONDENT.
Annexure A10            TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.494891/PEN.A1/27/2017-
                        FIN DATED 12.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
                        RESPONDENT.
Annexure A11            TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
                        KAT DATED 16.07.2014 IN O.A.NO.48 OF 2013.
Annexure A12            TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.6009/2016/G.EDN DATED
                        23.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN
                        COMPLIANCE WITH ANNEXURE-A11.
Annexure A12(a)         TYPED COPY OF ANNEXURE A12.
Annexure A13            TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2023 IN

O.A.(EKM) NO.2728 OF 2017 OF THE HON'BLE KAT.

Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.431/2024/TAXES DATED 24.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P1              TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.1142/2024 FILED BEFORE
                        THE    KERALA     ADMINISTRATIVE    TRIBUNAL,
                        THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
 OP(KAT)No.279 of 2025                 16               2026:KER:19843




Exhibit P2              TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
                        23.08.2024 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE SECOND
                        RESPONDENT IN O.A.1142/2024 OF THE HON'BLE
                        KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P3              TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 23.10.2024
                        FILED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST

RESPONDENT, ADOPTING THE REPLY STATEMENT OF SECOND RESPONDENT IN O.A.NO.1142/2024 OF THE HON'BLE KAT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 22.02.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REPLY FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 05.03.2025 IN O.A.1142/2024 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court