Pension eligibility is governed by prevailing conditions at the time of appointment, and service conditions may change. The court's supervisory jurisdiction does not allow review of all errors in tribunal decisions unless there is manifest injustice.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 2^nd respondent Principal Secretary (Finance), opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Annexures R2(a) and R2(b) orders. After 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 judgm