State Of Kerala,Represented By Its vs Rakesh.M on 5 February, 2026

[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala,Represented By Its vs Rakesh.M on 5 February, 2026

This original petition is filed by respondents 1, 2 and 4 in O.A.(EKM)No.1474 of 2019, on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the 'Tribunal' for short), invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05.10.2023, passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The 1st respondent-applicant filed O.A.(EKM)No.1474 of 2019 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs;

"(i) Set aside the Annexure A1 order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the second respondent, so as to secure the ends of justice.

(ii) Declare that the prior service of the applicant from 04.04.2012 to 16.12.2014 with the fourth respondent is liable to be counted while fixing the pay and perquisites of the applicant under the 2nd respondent.

(iii) Direct the 2nd respondent to fix the pay and perquisites of the applicant under the 2nd respondent by counting the prior service of the applicant under the 4th respondent for the period between 04.04.2012 to 16.12.2014, so as to secure the ends of justice."

3. The 1st respondent-applicant entered service as a O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 4 2026:KER:9680 Watchman, as per Annexure A2 proceedings dated 04.04.2012 of the 3rd petitioner District Development Officer for Scheduled Caste, Kasargod, under the pay scale of Rs.8500-13210 and was posted at the Government Pre-Metric Hostel, Rajapuram of Kasargod District. By Annexure A3 proceedings dated 29.08.2013 of the 3rd petitioner, the service of the 1st respondent-applicant was regularised with effect from the forenoon of 04.04.2012. Subsequently, the 1st respondent-applicant has been advised by the District Officer of Kerala Public Service Commission, Kasargod, for being appointed as Office Attendant under the Local Self Government Institutions, Department of Government of Kerala, and by the order dated 17.12.2014, the 1st respondent-applicant was appointed as Office Attendant at the office of the Kanhangad Municipality. Thereafter, by Annexure A4 proceedings dated 26.07.2016 of the Director of Municipalities, the appointment of the 1st respondent-applicant was regularised. In the original application, the 1st respondent-applicant pleaded that while fixing the pay and increments under the Director of Municipalities, his previous service as a watchman under the Scheduled Caste Development Department was not considered by the Director of Municipalities. The request made by the 1st respondent for the said O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 5 2026:KER:9680 purpose was not considered by the Director of Municipalities. Being aggrieved, the 1st respondent-applicant previously approached the Tribunal by preferring O.A.(EKM)No.2289 of 2017. By Annexure A5 order dated 07.12.2017, the Tribunal disposed of the said original application with a direction to the 2nd respondent Kanhangad Municipality to forward the representations submitted by the 1st respondent-applicant to the Director of Municipalities, along with a report, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that order. The Director of Municipalities was further directed to take a decision on the same within a further period of three months. Thereafter, the Director of Municipalities vide Annexure A1 proceedings dated 27.04.2018 rejected the claim of the 1st respondent-applicant. Contending that Annexure A1 order is arbitrary and illegal, the 1st respondent- applicant filed the original application.

3.1. In the original application, on behalf of the 2nd petitioner, the Director of Urban Affairs, a reply statement dated 23.01.2020 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Exts.R2(a) and R2(b) documents. Paragraph 3 of that reply statement reads thus;

"3. It is humbly submitted that the Annexure A1, dated O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 6 2026:KER:9680 27.04.2018, was issued by this respondent complying the order issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal as per order dated 07.12.2017 in O.A.(EKM) No. 2289 of 2017, wherein the claim of the applicant for counting the prior service of the applicant for the purpose of pay and perquisites were rejected. This rejection is based on G.O(MS)No.211/2006/LSGD dated 12.09.2006, and as per Government letter No. EU2/322/2018/LSGD dated 11.01.2019, which stipulates that reveals that only the official who changed their services from Government service to Municipal Service, prior to 12.09.2006 are eligible to get the benefits of prior services and pay protection. True copy of the aforesaid Government Order dated 12.09.2006 and Government letter dated 11.01.2019 are produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(a) & (b). Hence the prior services in SC Development Department of Sri.Rakhesh M could not be considered with the services of the Municipal Common Services."

3.2. On behalf of the 1st petitioner, a reply statement dated 13.06.2023 was filed in the original application, producing therewith Annexures R1(a) and R1(b) documents. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of that reply statement read thus;

"4. The request of the petitioner is to count his earlier service in Government service for fixing the salary in Municipal Common service. Requests from many employees had been received requesting to protect their earlier pay in Government service to Municipal Common Service. As per GO(MS) No.162/87/LAD dated 13.07.1987, the prior O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 7 2026:KER:9680 Government service used to reckon for pay protection in Municipal Common service. In the common judgment dated 05.11.2005 in W.P.(C) No. 18153 of 2005 and 18268 of 2005, the Hon'ble Court has held that the petitioners in those Writ Petitions were relieved from Government department on their volition and got appointment in another service. Unless there are statutory rules or Government Orders permitting such persons also to get the benefit of pay protection, such persons cannot claim for pay protection. Based on the common judgment dated 05.11.2005 in W.P.(C)Nos. 18153 of 2005 and 18268 of 2005, Government cancelled the above Government orders as per GO(MS) No.211/2006/LSGD dated 12.09.2006. True copy of GO(MS) No.211/2006/LSGD dated 12.09.2006 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a). In the common judgment dated 05.11.2005 in W.P.(C) Nos. 18153 of 2005 and 18268 of 2005, the Hon'ble court has specifically held that Municipal Common service is distinct from the services in Government Departments. True copy of the common judgment dated 05.11.2005 in W.P.(C) Nos. 18153 of 2005 and 18268 of 2005 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(b). The employee who accepts the new employment in a different service cannot say that he was transferred from the earlier service to the new service by an order passed by the former employer. Municipal Common Service and Government service do not fall in the same service under public service. The term same service refers to any one of the several services constituted by the special rules applicable to such service issued under Kerala Public service Act 1958. Since MCS is constituted under the O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 8 2026:KER:9680 Municipalities Act, it does not fall in the same service under Public service. In neither of these Acts, there is provision to reciprocally carry forward service benefits of employees transferred from Government service to Municipal Common service and vice versa .The above stand has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in a judgment dated 05- 11-2005 in W.P.(C)No.18268 of 2005. There after Government took a consistent stand that prior Government service or pay of an employee in Government Service who entered in Municipal Common Service on or after 12.09.2006 will not be protected. Hence, the prior services of the persons, who joined in the Municipal Common Service are not considering with the services of the Municipal Common Services. Similarly, the service in Municipal Common service is not counting for fixing pay in Government service. The period of Government service from 31- 03-1984 to 11-09-2006 is counting for fixing the salary of employees in Municipal Common Service, and the salary is not protecting those who joined in Municipal Common Service after 11-09-2006.

5. Also, there is no provision in Kerala Service Rules to reckon the service rendered by an incumbent in Municipal Common Service along with the Government service. If Government allow this case it will lead to many litigation and demand from similarly placed persons which will lead to huge financial commitments to Government by way of revision of pay and allowances with retrospective effect. In W.P.(C)No. 27485 of 2008, the Hon'ble High Court has ordered that it is in the realm of policy of the Government to lay down the recruitment rules. If the appointee has O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 9 2026:KER:9680 chosen a different service, it concludes that he has relinquished the pay which he was drawing in the prior service. The wisdom of choosing different service is in the field of choice of the employee concerned. The employee cannot now command that his pay should be protected."

4. To the reply statements filed by petitioners 1 and 2, the 1st respondent-applicant filed a rejoinder dated 19.08.2023, producing therewith Annexure A11 document. Paragraph 3 of that rejoinder reads thus;

"3. It is respectfully submitted that the Govt. vide GO(MS) No. 162/87/LSGD dated 13.07.1987 decided to reckon the prior Govt. service of employees who get transfer to the Municipal Common service for service benefits. The Hon'ble High Court in R1 (b) Judgment interpreted the term transfer used in the above GO and dismissed the writ petition, holding the view that Municipal Common service is distinct from the services in Government departments. But the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in Santhoshkumar A Vs Director of Panchayats and others [2013 (2) KHC 323] took a different view and held that after the 73rd amendment, there is no doubt that servants in the Panchayat / Municipal Common service are Government servants and the position laid down by the Full Bench in Balakrishnan Nair will continue to hold the field. Based on the above legal position, the Hon'ble High Court in O.P.(KAT) No. 4373 of 2012 (Annexure A9) held that the petitioner in that case will be eligible for all service benefits including protection of salary and other benefits in Municipal O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 10 2026:KER:9680 Common service reckoning prior Govt. service. Relying on the above decisions of the Hon'ble High Court, this Hon'ble Tribunal vide Annexure A10 order allowed similar cases. Moreover the Hon'ble High Court in O.P.(KAT) No. 219 of 2022 (Annexure A10 Judgment) discussed all aspects including GO(MS) No. 162/87/LSGD dated 13.07.1987 and GO(MS) No. 211/2006/LSGD dated 12.09.2006 and held that there is no justification for a differential treatment of employees in the Panchayat service and employees in the Municipal Common service. Hence, the contention taken by the 1st and 2nd respondents by pointing out R1(a) order and R1(b) Judgment has no merit. The Government vide order dated 21.02.2017 allowed similar benefit to Sri.N E Sooraj, LD Typist. A true copy of GO(MS) No. 256/17/LSGD dated 21.12.2017 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A11. In view of the above facts and circumstances the OA is liable to be allowed, and the applicant prays for the same."

5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, by relying on Annexure A10 judgment of this Court dated 05.01.2023 in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022, which was one passed following the judgment in Santhosh Kumar [2013 (2) KLT 548], the Tribunal disposed of the original application by setting aside Annexure A1 order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Director of Municipalities. The State of Kerala and the Director of Municipalities were directed to issue orders reckoning the service rendered by the 1st respondent-applicant under the Government O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 11 2026:KER:9680 for the period from 04.04.2012 to 30.12.2014, along with his service in Municipal Common Service for all service benefits and to fix his pay accordingly. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the State and its officials are now before this Court with the present original petition.

6. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kanhangad Municipality.

7. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the Municipal Common Service and Government Service do not fall in the same service, under public service. Neither the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, nor the Kerala Public Services Act, 1958, contains the provisions to reciprocally carry forward service benefits of employees transferred from Government Service to Municipal Common Service and vice versa. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that, though against Annexure A10 judgment in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022, the State preferred SLP(C) Diary No.19161 of 2023 before the Apex Court and a stay order was initially granted, by Ext.P8 order dated 22.09.2023, now, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that there are O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 12 2026:KER:9680 judgments, including the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Mohanan v. State of Kerala [2013 (3) KLT 970], in favour of the State, which were not brought to the notice of the Apex Court while passing the judgment in SLP(C) Diary No.19161 of 2023. There is no provision in Kerala Service Rules to reckon the service rendered by the 1st respondent in Municipal Common Service along with Government Service. In such circumstances, according to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-applicant would submit that the Tribunal passed the impugned order based on Annexure A10 judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022, which was one rendered following the judgment in Santhosh Kumar [2013 (2) KLT 548]. Though the State went in appeal against the Annexure A10 judgment, by Ext.R1(a) order dated 12.08.2025, the Apex Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition (Civil) bearing SLP(C)No.21756 of 2023. Therefore, in effect, the judgment in Santhosh Kumar [2013 (2) KLT 548] is governing the field and therefore, no interference is needed on the impugned order of the Tribunal.

9. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 13 2026:KER:9680 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.

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 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 O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 14 2026:KER:9680 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 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) O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 15 2026:KER:9680 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 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 O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 16 2026:KER:9680 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 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.

15. While coming to the arguments addressed at the Bar, in Mohanan [2013 (3) KLT 970], a Division Bench of this Court considered the matters related to persons who, while working as police constables, accepted appointments by direct recruitment either as Village Extension Officer Grade-II or Lower Division Clerks, following PSC advice in that regard. Regarding the extension of benefits of the service rendered by them as Police Constables, which was clarified as not available by the Government, this Court held thus;

"3. Not only that, as can be seen from Ext. P5, produced along with the original application before the Tribunal, even according to the Government, reckoning of total service rendered in all the posts can be only by excluding the period of actual break in service. Service jurisprudence does not envisage a government servant, while in office, re-entering government service by direct recruitment. Therefore, a O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 17 2026:KER:9680 Police Constable, on being selected for direct recruitment as Village Extension Officer or Lower Division Clerk, as the case may be, can re-enter the Government of Kerala only after demitting the office as Police Constable. By that exercise, there will be a total break down of the jural relationship of master and servant, as between the State Government and the officer concerned. That break in service is sufficient to break any continuity that could be claimed for any grade promotion benefits. This reasoning supports the decision in WA No.2939 of 2001 referred to above, and seals the issue."

However, while going through Annexure A10 judgment passed by this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022, we notice that the facts of O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022 are almost similar to those of the instant case.

16. In Santhosh Kumar [2013 (2) KLT 548], which is relied upon by this Court in Annexure A10 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court held thus;

"6. We, therefore, proceed to examine the manner in which the Panchayats could employ servants or staff. Adverting to Part IX of the Constitution, which deals with the Panchayats, it can be seen that the composition of Panchayats, the powers and functions of Grama Sabha and such other matters are required to be covered by legislation to be made by the respective State Legislatures. Looking into the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, for short, "KPR Act", made after the aforenoted constitutional amendment; what surges with abundant relevance to the O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 18 2026:KER:9680 issue in hand is Chapter XVI, which deals with officers and employees of Panchayats. Sub-section (1) of S.179 of that Act provides for appointment of a Secretary for a Panchayat, who shall be a Government servant. Different aspects touching the Secretary of the Panchayat are cohesively provided in S.179 so that the Panchayat concerned would also have a word in the matter to the extent statutorily provided. Now, going to S.180, it can be seen that the said statutory provision makes it explicitly clear that all persons serving the Panchayat would be Government servants. We say so because, sub-section (1) of S.180 provides that officers and employees of the Panchayat, other than contingent employees, would be Government servants. Sub-section (4) of S.180 provides that the Government shall, by rules made under the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968, - for short, 'KPS Act', regulate the classification, methods of recruitment, conditions of service, pay and allowances and discipline and conduct of officers and employees. Such rules shall be subject to the provisions of the KPR Act. Those rules may provide for the constitution of any class of officers or servants of panchayats into a separate service either for the whole State or for each district. This provision enjoins the making and classification of service to provide for officers and servants for the different panchayats. It also categorically shows that the rules are to be made under the KPS Act. Necessarily, therefore, it imports into the spectrum, Art.309 and Art.311 of the Constitution. This being the present statutory scenario in the backdrop of the constitutional position available after the 73rd amendment, there is no doubt that O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 19 2026:KER:9680 servants in the Panchayat / Municipal Common Service are Government servants and the position laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Balakrishnan Nair (supra) will continue to hold the field. Obviously, this does not relate to the contingent servants because the contingent servants are not treated as Government servants. We, therefore, completely agree with the views expressed in the reference order by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice P. N. Ravindran.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the reference made by the learned Single Judge, to the extent it relates to the Panchayat and Municipal employees, to whichever category they belong, other than the contingent employees, is answered in the affirmative stating that matters relating to their conditions of service etc. are governed by S.15(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985."

17. In Balakrishnan Nair v. Ram Mohan Nair [1998 (1) KLT 766], which was referred to in Santhosh Kumar [2013 (2) KLT 548], a Full Bench of this Court, while considering the true scope and content of Rule 8 of Part II of KS & SSR, held thus;

"32. Now we shall examine Rule 8 to find out whether the term service will include services other than the services classified as State and Subordinate Service. The fourth proviso and Note 1 to Rule 8 throw light on this aspect. They are as follows:

Provided also that this Rule shall not apply in the case of a member of a service whose absence from duty in such service is by reason of his appointment to another service not being Military Service, solely on his own application, O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 20 2026:KER:9680 unless such appointment is made in the exigencies of Public Service.

Note 1: An appointment made in pursuance of applications invited, sponsored or recommended by Government or other competent authority shall be deemed to be an appointment made in the exigencies of Public Service for the purpose of this rule.

The mention of Military service in the proviso is an indication to show that the term service is not confined to State and Subordinate Service. Further, according to the proviso and Note 1, appointment made in the exigencies of Public Service on the application or recommendation of the Government or competent authority will be deemed to be absence from duty from the parent service. The term Public service has a wider concept than the term service mentioned in Clause 15 of Rule 2 KS & SSR. It cannot be denied that Municipal Common Service is not a Public Service. The Kerala Municipal Common Service is constituted in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 90 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961. Section 90 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act is as follows:

90. Constitution of a Common Municipal Service : -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 91 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (Act 14 of 1961) the Government may constitute the employees under the Municipal Councils and Corporations in the State into a common Municipal service for the State, subject to such rules as may be prescribed by the Government in this behalf.

O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 21

2026:KER:9680 (2) The Government may make rules to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of officers and servants of Municipal Corporations.

Rule 3 of the Kerala Municipal Common Service Rules states that on and effect from the first day of November 1967, the employees of the Municipal Councils and Corporations holding the posts specified by the Government, by order in this behalf, shall be constituted into a common service for the State. Under Clause (2) of Rule 3, the Government is given the power to arrange for the preparation of a combined gradation list of the persons holding the posts included in the common service. Rule 4 enables the Government or the Director or any other Officer authorised by the Government to transfer an employee holding any post included in the common service from one local authority to another. The pay and allowance are to be disbursed at the rates fixed by the Government. The recruitment committee for the purpose of recruitments to the posts included in the common service is to be constituted by the Government. Under Rule 8 recruitment is to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Common Service Rules and such other orders as the Government may from time to time issue. Rule 10 deals with appointing authority. The person competent to appoint any employee shall be notified by the Government. Qualifications for the different posts are to be prescribed by the Government. Under Rule 12, the Government may for special reasons and in the exigencies of service, appoint any person from the service of the Government to any of the posts under a local authority included in the common service O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 22 2026:KER:9680 on foreign service conditions. Rule 14 of the Rules makes the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules applicable in the case of employees of the common service.

33. Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether the Panchayat service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act is a civil service. Dealing with this question, the Court held as follows:

the true test for determination of the question whether a person is holding a civil post or is a member of the civil service is the existence of a relationship of master and servant between the State and the person holding a post under it and that the existence of such relationship is dependent upon the right of the State to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages and remuneration. It is further held that the relationship of master and servant may be established by the presence of all or some of the factors referred to above in conjunction with other circumstances.

The Court then considered the provisions of the Panchayats Act and held as follows:

It may be noted that the Panchayat service contemplated under Section 203 of the Panchayat Act is a single service for the whole State and it is not a collection of distinct and separate services of such individual panchayat. That panchayat service is a service under the State is again emphasised by Section 206 which authorises the State Government to pool together four classes of persons mentioned therein who originally belonged to four different O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 23 2026:KER:9680 sources and to allocate them to the Panchayat Service and one class of such persons are those who belong to the State Service. Unless the Panchayat Service is held to be a State Service, inclusion of officers and servants in the State Service will be unconstitutional.

It was further observed thus:

State Public Services may be constituted or established either by a law made by the State Legislature or by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or even by an executive order made by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. The recruitment and conditions of service of the officers and servants of the State Government may also be regulated by statute, rules or executive orders. The administration of a service under a State involves broadly the following functions: (i) the organization of the civil service and the termination of the remuneration, conditions of service, expenses and allowances of persons serving in it; (ii) the manner of admitting persons to civil service; (iii) exercise of disciplinary control over members of the service and power of transfer, suspend, remove or dismiss them in the public interest as and when occasion to do so arises. In the instant case, the Panchayat Service is constituted by the Panchayats Act and the State Government is empowered to make orders and rules regarding its organisation and management. It is true that in Section 203 of the Panchayats Act, it is stated that the Panchayat Service shall be distinct from the State Service. Having regard to the broad feature of the Panchayat Service, we are of the view that the said declaration appears to have been made only to O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 24 2026:KER:9680 distinguish the Panchayat Service from other services of the State attached to the several departments which are under the direct control of the State Government. If the members of the Panchayat Service are not to be the members of a service under the State Government but are to be the officers and servants of the Panchayat unit to which they are allotted then sub-sections (2), (2-A) and 4(a) of Section 203 of the Panchayats Act would to some extent become unworkable as every time there is a transfer of an officer borne on the Panchayat Service there would be a change of master.

On an examination of the Kerala Municipal Common Service Rules, we are of the view on the basis of the above Supreme Court decision that the Municipal Common Service is also a public service. Thus, the fourth respondent will be allowed to join the Collectorate, Pathanamthitta as per Ext. R4(e) order. He will be entitled to all the benefits which would have accrued to him had he joined the Collectorate immediately Ext. R4(e) order."

[Underline supplied]

18. From the materials placed on record, we notice that though the Annexure A10 judgment in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022 was challenged by the State before the Apex Court by filing SLP(C)No.21756 of 2023, the same was dismissed as per Ext.R1(a) order dated 12.08.2025. In such circumstances, it is only to be held that the findings in the Annexure A10 judgment attained finality. Therefore, the claim of the 1st respondent to O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 25 2026:KER:9680 reckon his Government Service to Municipal Common service is squarely covered in Annexure A10 judgment in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022, which has attained finality.

19. Viewed the facts of the instant case, in the light of the judgments referred to supra, it is only to be held that the petitioners have not made out any ground to hold the impugned order of the Tribunal as perverse or illegal, which warrants interference by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, this original petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE MSA O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024 26 2026:KER:9680 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 145 OF 2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 04.04.2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29.08.2013 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 26.07.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2017 IN O.A(EKM)NO.2289/2017 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL.

Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.10.2017 WHICH IS REFERRED TO AS MA4(1) IN THE ANNEXURE A5 JUDGMENT.

Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 12.09.2006.

Annexure R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 11.01.2019.

Annexure A7                 TRUE COPY OF 2013 (2) KHC 323.
Annexure A8                 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH

COURT DATED 22.05.2013 IN OP(KAT)NO.4373 OF 2012.

Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE KAT DATED 08.08.2016 IN O.A. NO.2273 OF 2013.

Annexure A10                TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2023
                            OF    THE    HONOURABLE    HIGH   COURT    IN
                            O.P.(KAT)NO.219/2022.
Annexure R1(a)              TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.211/2006/LSGD
                            DATED 12.09.2006.
Annexure R1(b)              TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2005
                            IN WP(C) NOS. 18153/2005 & 18268/2005.
Annexure A11                TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.256/17/LSGD DATED
                            21.12.2017.
Exhibit P1                  TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.1474/2019
Exhibit P2                  REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
                            RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3                  MISCELLANEOUS     APPLICATION    FILED     ON
                            07.01.2023
Exhibit P4                  MISCELLANEOUS     APPLICATION    FILED     ON
                            19.06.2023
Exhibit P5                  REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST
                            RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6                  REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE REPLY
 O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024             27
                                                        2026:KER:9680

                          STATEMENT OF THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7                TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2023 IN
                          OA(EKM) 1474/2019
Exhibit P8                TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 22.09.2023
                          IN SLP(C) NO.19161/23.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R1(a)             TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
                          COURT   DATED 12.08.2025  IN   SLP  NO(S)
                          21756/2023

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court