M.Sugadha Kumar vs The State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2025

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M.Sugadha Kumar vs The State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2025

The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.1326 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, which was one filed invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, to set aside Annexure A9 order dated 12.08.2022 issued by the 1st respondent State; a declaration that the applicant is entitled to be included under the statutory pension scheme under Part III of Kerala Service Rules (KER); and an order directing the 1st respondent State to place the applicant under the statutory pension scheme under Part III KSR with effect from the date of his joining duty and also to refund the contribution that he had made towards the National Pension Scheme, with interest.

2. The petitioner-applicant, who was a candidate included in Annexure A2 ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission, for the post of Municipal Secretary Gr.III in the Urban Affairs Department, which was one published pursuant to Annexure A1 notification dated 30.04.2009. He was appointed as Municipal Secretary Gr.III on 09.05.2017, as advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission, and posted at 4 OP(KAT)No.437 of 2022 2025:KER:70752 Ottapalam Municipality on 09.08.2017, after undergoing training.

3. According to the petitioner-applicant, at the time of Annexure A1 notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission as well as the publication of Annexure A2 ranked list, statutory pension as provided in Part III KSR was in force. However, the applicant was included in the National Pension Scheme by the 1st respondent State, which came into force with effect from 01.04.2013, thereby altered the condition of service provided in Annexure A1 notification.

4. The petitioner-applicant submitted Annexure A7 representation dated 26.07.2021 before the 1st respondent State, which was directed to be considered by Annexure A8 order dated 23.03.2022 of the Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm)No.479 of 2022. Pursuant to the direction contained in Annexure A8 order, the 1 st respondent State issued Annexure A9 order dated 12.08.2022, whereby the request made by the applicant stands rejected for the reasons stated therein.

5. Before the Tribunal, a reply statement dated 28.09.2022 has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent Principal Secretary (Finance), opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Annexures R2(a) and R2(b) orders. After 5 OP(KAT)No.437 of 2022 2025:KER:70752 considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P4 order dated 27.10.2022 dismissed the original application, for the reasons stated therein. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ext.P4 order read thus;

"6. On a meticulous consideration of the contentions raised on both sides, we find that the applicant who was appointed only as per Annexure A4 order on 02.05.2017 would be entitled only to those benefits which were available as on that date. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, the submission of an application on the basis of a notification issued by the PSC or inclusion in the ranked list would not give rise to any right to a candidate. He cannot have any right available to a Government servant, except after his appointment, which happened only on 02.05.2017. Mere inclusion of a candidate in the ranked list published by the PSC, would not guarantee that the candidate would get advice or appointment. Appointment would be given only in the event of existence of a substantive vacancy during the currency of the said ranked list unlike the case which was under consideration before the Delhi High Court. The applicant cannot have any right to be granted the benefit of pension. The Government has fixed the date as 01.04.2013 for introduction of National Pension Scheme after elaborate discussions. As held by the Apex Court in the judgment in State of West Bengal v. Ratan Behari Dey [(1993) 4 SCC 62] as well as the judgment in Mohammad Ali Imam v. State of Bihar [(2020) 5 SCC 62] where the 6 OP(KAT)No.437 of 2022 2025:KER:70752 aforesaid judgment has been relied on, the conditions of service are subject to changes and even the employees who entered service cannot claim those service conditions without any alteration. Even after the appointment it is up to the Government to alter the service conditions including those relating to pension and pensionary benefits, on valid reasons.

7. In the circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. The Original Application is dismissed."

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2022 of the Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm)No.1326 of 2022, the petitioner- applicant is before this Court in this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. On 20.12.2022, when this original petition came up for admission, it was admitted on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would contend that Ext.P4 order dated 27.10.2022 of the Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm)No.1326 of 2022 is one rendered without properly 7 OP(KAT)No.437 of 2022 2025:KER:70752 appreciating the legal and factual contentions raised by the applicant. In such circumstances, interference on the said order is warranted. The learned counsel would point out the observation made in Annexure A9 order dated 12.08.2022 of the 1st respondent State, wherein it is stated that the report submitted by the NPS Review Committee is being examined by the Government and a policy decision is necessary in the matter.

10. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that valid reasons have been stated in Annexure A9 order dated 12.08.2022 to reject the claim made by the petitioner-applicant in Annexure A7 representation dated 26.07.2021. In Annexure A1 notification the notified vacancy is only 5. In Annexure A2 ranked list, the petitioner-applicant is Serial No.1 in the supplementary list under the head PH-Deaf and Dumb. The vacancy in which the petitioner-applicant is accommodated occurred in the year 2017, during the extended validity of the said ranked list and he was advised and got appointment on 09.05.2017, much after the introduction of National Pension Scheme, which came into force with effect from 01.04.2013.

11. In Ext.P4 order, the Tribunal found that the Government has fixed the date as 01.04.2013 for introduction of 8 OP(KAT)No.437 of 2022 2025:KER:70752 National Pension Scheme after elaborate discussions. As held by the Apex Court in the judgment in State of West Bengal v. Ratan Behari Dey [(1993) 4 SCC 62] as well as the judgment in Mohammad Ali Imam v. State of Bihar [(2020) 5 SCC 62] where the aforesaid judgment has been relied on, the conditions of service are subject to changes and even the employees who entered service cannot claim those service conditions without any alteration. Even after the appointment it is up to the Government to alter the service conditions including those relating to pension and pensionary benefits, on valid reasons. The petitioner-applicant got appointment as Municipal Secretary Gr.III, pursuant to his inclusion in Annexure A2 ranked list, only on 09.05.2017. His entry into service is much after 01.04.2013, the date on which National Pension Scheme was introduced.

12. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with 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.

OP(KAT)No.437 of 2022

2025:KER:70752

13. 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.

14. 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 10 OP(KAT)No.437 of 2022 2025:KER:70752 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 11 OP(KAT)No.437 of 2022 2025:KER:70752 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.

17. 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 the Administrative Tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order of the Administrative 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 Administrative Tribunal has committed a manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably 12 OP(KAT)No.437 of 2022 2025:KER:70752 perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the 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.

18. In Ext.P4 order, the Tribunal has stated valid reasons to reject the claim made by the applicant and to decline interference on Annexure A9 order. The reasoning the Tribunal in the said order is neither perverse nor patently illegal warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, this original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE AV 13 OP(KAT)No.437 of 2022 2025:KER:70752 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 437/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit - P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WITH ANNEXURES Exhibit - P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES Exhibit - P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE OA Exhibit - P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2022 IN OA.(EKM).NO.1326/2022

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court