Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
M. Sugadha Kumar S/o Late Radhakrishnan Nair – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility under pension scheme (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding statutory benefits and precedents (Para 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. scope of judicial review under article 227 (Para 6 , 8 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
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 1st 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 1st 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.
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 provi
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 tri....
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 allows intervention only in cases of patent error or injustice, not for correcting all Tribunal errors.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not allow interference unless there is a manifest error or flagrant abuse of justice by the Administrative Tribunal.
The High Court upheld the Administrative Tribunal’s dismissal of a seniority challenge, affirming that tribunals operate within their jurisdiction unless manifest errors occur.
The High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, upholding Tribunal decisions unless there's manifest error or injustice.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not extend to converting a tribunal's decision into an appeal; it can only intervene in cases of grave dereliction of d....
The High Court under Article 227 exercises supervisory jurisdiction and cannot correct lower tribunal errors without clear evidence of fundamental principles of law being violated.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not permit interference unless there is gross violation of legal principles.
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to ensuring lower courts act within jurisdiction, without intervening unless there is a manifest error ....
The Tribunal violated natural justice by failing to hear both parties before passing its order, necessitating the High Court's intervention under Article 227.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
