Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 11 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
K. Anil Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 1996
8.2 In Anila K.K. and others v. State of Kerala and others
O.P.(KAT)No.476 of 2025 9
2025:KER:94249
[2009 (3) KHC 986], the question under consideration was
whether the finding that the petitioners are not eligible for
reservation benefits will apply prospectively or not. The
Hon'ble High Court found that the benefits accrued till the
date of the order were not disturbed. It was further clarified
that this would mean the employment secured by the
petitioners or any promotion granted to them shall not be
cancelled or disturbed.
Shalini vs New English High Scl.Assn.& Ors on 12 December, 2013
In Shalini v New English High School Association and
others [(2013) 16 SCC 526], the question under
consideration was whether termination of employment after
passage of several decades, on the finding of the Scrutiny
Committee, makes the petitioner disentitled to the benefits
already granted. The Apex Court found that since there was
no falsity in the claim of the applicant, it could not be
considered that the petitioner had produced any false
certificate. Accordingly, the termination from employment
was set aside, and reinstatement in service was ordered.
8.4.
Dr. J. Vijayan vs The State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2022
In Vijayan v. State of Kerala [2013 (2) KHC 149], the
question under consideration was whether the community
certificate issued by a competent authority can be cancelled
merely on the finding that the person does not belong to
the community as claimed. In this judgment, the Hon'ble
High Court set aside the order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee to correct the school records
8.5.
State Of Kerala Represented By The vs E.K. Varghese on 7 March, 2014
applicant had actually worked, pursuant to the interim orders
passed by the High Court, was issued by the Apex Court, as the
Apex Court was of the view that it would be just proper and
equitable to pay her salary for the said period. Such a direction
issued by the Apex Court in a justice-oriented approach, as
against the strict rigors of the law, in the exercise of the powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, does not constitute
a binding precedent, unlike Article 141 of the Constitution.
Therefore, Annexure A6 judgment or Annexure A8 order of the
Apex Court would not enable the petitioner-applicant to raise a
claim for pension for the service rendered by her before the order
of termination, or an order directing the 2nd respondent to modify
Annexure A4 order dated 04.07.2011, whereby the applicant was
terminated from service, so as to grant her pension for the 26
years of service rendered. In Ext.P5 order dated 27.08.2025 in
O.A.No.1274 of 2022, the Tribunal has also found that in view of
the provisions contained in Rule 29(a) of Part III, Kerala Service
Rules (KSR), resignation of the public service or the dismissal or
removal from it, entails forfeiture of past service. A Division
Bench of this Court in State of Kerala and others v. E.K.
Varghese [2016 (1) KHC 35] held that the said Rule does not
O.P.(KAT)No.476 of 2025 26
2025:KER:94249
suffer from the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.