The High Court dismissed an original petition filed by the State of Kerala against the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's order fixing pensionary benefits for a retired Tahsildar, finding the Tribunal's reasoning under the Pay Revision Order justified and no interference warranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2016/3RD JYAISHTA, 1938
OP(KAT).No. 62 of 2016 (Z)
ORDER DATED 30.11.2015 IN O.A.No.1139/14 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI M.MOHAMMED SHAFI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
K. JANARDHANAN THAMPI S/O.K KESAVAPILLA, TAHSILDAR/SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RTD) RESIDING AT DIVYADARSAN, KUMILI, THIRUPURAM P O, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695133
BY SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 62 of 2016 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO 1139/2014 EXT.P2 COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF ORDER IN OA No.1139/14
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------------------------------
True copy
P.S.to Judge
dsn
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
O.P.(KAT).No.62 OF 2016
-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF MAY, 2016
JUDGMENT
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J .
The petitioners, who are the respondents before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.No.1139/2014 are before this Court in this Original Petition aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal dated 30.11.2015, by which the Tribunal set aside Annexure A6 order dated 1.4.2014 and directed the 1st petitioner herein to pass fresh orders in the matter in compliance with the directions contained in that order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has ordered that, appropriate orders will be passed by the 1st petitioner herein, by accepting the option of the respondent herein and by complying with Para.7(2) of Annexure 2 to Annexure A4 Pay Revision Order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of Ext.P3 order. The Tribunal has also ordered that the fixation of pensionary benefits of the respondent herein will have to be revised accordingly. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners are before this Court in this Original Petition.
OP(KAT)No.62/2016 -2-
OP(KAT)No.62/2016 -3-
of Annexure 2 to Annexure A4 order, an employee promoted to a higher scale (whether by regular promotion, ratio promotion or under the time bound higher grade scheme) on or after 1.7.2004 but before 25.3.2006, the date of Annexure A4 order, will have the option to continue in the pre-revised scale of the lower post till the date of such promotion and then first avail promotion to the pre-revised scale of the higher post and thereafter avail the benefits of Annexure A4 pay revision on the same date as such promotion. Going by Annexure A4, the option will be available only for the first promotion after 1.7.2004 and that the benefit of option will be restricted to the employees who were promoted on or after 1.7.2004 but before 25.3.2006.
vacancy of Tahsildar/Senior Superintendent, in which the appellant was promoted by Annexure A2 order dated 24.3.2006. Therefore, it can only be concluded that the applicant was promoted to the post of Tahsildar/Senior Superintendent prior to
OP(KAT)No.62/2016 -4-
the cut off date of 25.3.2006 in Annexure A2 Pay Revision Order. It was after considering the relevant provisions under Para.7(2) of Annexure 2 to Annexure A4 Pay Revision Order, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled for the benefit of pay fixation contemplated under that order. It was accordingly that the Tribunal set aside Annexure A6 order and directed the 1st petitioner herein to pass fresh orders in compliance with the directions contained therein. We find that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in allowing the Original Application by setting aside Annexure A6 order. The reasoning of the Tribunal in this regard in Ext.P3 order warrants no interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, the Original Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON , JUDGE
Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
dsn
True copy
P.S.to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the lower authority's order and directing fresh orders to fix the respondent's pensionary benefits.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the Tribunal's finding that the applicant is entitled to pay fixation.
Whether the applicant satisfies the conditions for option under Para.7(2) of Annexure 2 to Annexure A4 Pay Revision Order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaReferred¶45
Article 227 of the Constitution of India
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Kerala Represented by Additional Chief Secretary, Finance
Tahsildar/Retd.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Anil K. Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
