Ashok Bhushan, J.

These appeals raise common questions of law and facts and hence, were heard together and decided by this common judgment. W.A. No. 1381 of 2006 has been filed against the judgment dated 1.3.2006 in W.P.(C) No. 23692 of 2005, whereas, all other appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.9.2007 delivered in W.P.(C) No. 21379 of 2006 and seven other writ petitions of 2007. All the writ petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta deciding the complaints. It shall be sufficient to note in detail the facts in W.A. No. 1381 of 2006 and facts in W.A. No. 86 of 2008 for deciding all the other writ appeals.

W.A. No. 1381 of 2006

2. Nine policemen of the District Armed Reserve Police, Thiruvananthapuram were dismissed by order of the Government dated 26.6.1974 in exercise of power under sub clause (c) of the proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Ali Akbar, the husband of the first respondent - Abida Beevi, was also one of the nine policemen, who were dismissed by order dated 26.6.1974. The dismissal order of nine policemen were not challenged before any court or any authority. However, some of them submitted representation before the Government. The Government, vide its order dated 30.7.1990 reviewed its earlier order, by which, the dismissal was revoked and they were re-instated in service. In the order, it was further mentioned that orders as to how the period of absence in the cases of above policemen is to be regularised will be issued separately. Another Government Order dated 1.6.1992 was issued ordering that the period of dismissal shall be treated as break in service without forfeiture of past service. The husband of the first respondent, Ali Akbar, by that time, died on 28.8.1988. One of the policemen, N. Sasidharan Nair again submitted representation against the Government Order dated 1.6.1992, whereupon, the Government issued another order dated 1.4.2000 directing that the period of dismissal, that is; from 26.6.1974 to 30.7.1990 of the above nine policemen of District Armed Reserve, Thiruvananthapuram will be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, in relaxation of rules. The first respondent, Abida Beevi, filed a complaint No.1341 of 2004 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta praying for arrears of salary of late Ali Akbar from 26.6.1974 to 28.8.1988 along with interest. The complaint was resisted by the Government. It was stated that the Government Order dated 1.4.2000 was issued in relaxation of existing rules with a lenient view to help the reinstated constables including the deceased. It was also stated that no more leniency would be shown to them. It was stated that this employee was not eligible for arrears of salary as complained of. The Kerala Lok Ayukta by order dated 9.5.2005 decided the complaint holding that the deceased, husband of the complainant, was entitled for arrears of salary from 26.6.1974 to 28.8.1988 and a direction was issued to compute the salary and to pay the same to his legal heirs, that is; the complainant.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta , W.P. (C) No.23692 of 2005 was filed by the Commissioner of Police, the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department and the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala. The petitioners before the learned Single Judge contended that the Kerala Lok Ayukta have no jurisdiction to decide the complaint and hence, the order deserves to be set aside. It was further contended that according to KSR Part III, no further relaxation is entitled to be given to the reinstated constables. The learned Single Judge, on the first contention of the petitioners, observed that even if it is assumed that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction, if the order passed by it renders justice, this Court need not interfere with it. It was further observed that if the complainant had approached this Court, this Court would have passed an order di