The High Court, under Article 227, will not interfere with a tribunal order that aligns with settled judicial precedents and subsequent government policy granting pay protection for prior government service to employees in Municipal Common Service.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. The respondents 1 to 4 in O.A.No.535 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P5 order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 - applicants who are retired from the service of Maradu Municipality and Cochin Corporation, respectively, from the post of Senior Clerks on 31.05.2024, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.535 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A-8 letter and quash the same declaring that the applicants are entitled for all service benefits including protection of salary and other consequential benefits including pensionery benefits owing to their government service in KPSC and General Administration department from 2002 & 2004 respectively and direct the Respondents sanction and to disburse such benefits without any further delay.

2. Declare that the prior service of the applicants in KPSC and General Administration department from 2002 & 2004 respectively are liable to be reckoned as qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits and consequently direct the Respondents to revise the sanctioned pension and pensionary benefits”.

2.1. The 1^st respondent was initially appointed as Peon Grade-II in the office of the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ for short) with effect from 30.05.2002. While he was working in that post, he was appointed in Municipal Common Service as Lower Division Clerk as per Annexure A4 order dated 12.03.2010 issued by the Director of Urban Affairs, and the 1^st respondent joined Municipal Common Service on 08.04.2010. The 2^nd respondent was initially appointed as Peon Grade-II in the General Administration Department with effect from 27.05.2004. After a brief period of two months' service, the 2^nd respondent got an inter-departmental transfer to the office of Advocate General, Ernakulam, as per order dated 29.06.2004, and she served in that office till 28.03.2010. She was also appointed as Lower Division Clerk in Municipal Common Service along with the 1^st respondent as per Annexure A4 order dated 12.03.2010 of the Director of Urban Affairs, and she joined Municipal Common Service on 29.03.2010.

2.2. On the appointment of respondents 1 and 2 in Municipal Common Service, their pay was fixed without giving them the benefit of the protection of pay which they were drawing in the Government Departments. Though respondents 1 and 2 submitted representations before the Government requesting to grant them all service benefits including pension, reckoning the service rendered by them in the Government Departments prior their entry in Municipal Common Service, the said requests were rejected by the 1^st petitioner stating the reason that in the absence of amendment to Rule 20 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, the service rendered by them in Municipal Common Service alone can be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. Under those circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 filed O.A.No.535 of 2025 claiming that they are entitled to protection of pay and fixation of pension, reckoning the service rendered by them in the Government Departments before their entry in the Municipal Common Service.

2.3. In the original application