The High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, upholding Tribunal decisions unless there's manifest error or injustice.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The respondents in O.A.No.973 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P4 order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The respondents-applicants in the original application, who are retired Associate Professors and Principal from different Government Law Colleges, filed the original application invoking jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, challenging Clause 6.1 of Annexure A4 Government notification dated 25.02.2021, according to which the arrears of pension revision for the period from 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2019 made notional. The respondents also challenged Annexure A5 circular dated 23.04.2021 issued by the Principal Accountant General (A&E), based on Annexure A4 Government Order, wherein under Clause 8, it is stated that the revision of pension/family pension from 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2019 will be notional. Accordingly, the respondents sought a direction against the petitioners to release the revised arrears of salary of the respondents, who retired between 01.01.2016 and 30.06.2019, forthwith. They have also sought a direction against the petitioners to disburse all pensionary benefits to the respondents based on the revised salary.

3. In the original application on behalf of petitioners 1 and

2 herein, a reply statement dated 07.02.2023 was filed opposing the reliefs sought in the original application. To that reply statement, a rejoinder dated 10.01.2025 was filed by the respondents. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 30.01.2025, disposed of the original application. Paragraphs 2 to

4 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

“2. The very same issue was considered by the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment dated 27.11.2024 in OP(KAT) No.376 of 2022 and WP(C) No.38975 of 2022, reported in [2024 (7) KHC 407] . The very same issue was the subject matter of Annexure A7 judgment in WP(C) Nos.38696 of 2022 and 5173 of 2023. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has found that the impugned provisions are contrary to statutory provisions and accordingly set aside the same directing the respondents to disburse the pension of the petitioners therein based on the revised pay and to disburse the entire arrears within two months.

3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the 1^st respondent has taken up the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, unless and until the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is reversed, that will continue to be binding.

4. It is not necessary to set aside the impugned provisions again. As Circular Annexure A5 is dependent on Annexure A4 order, it is not necessary to set aside the Circular also. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court which governs the issue, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release the arrears of revised salary to the applicants from the date of effect of the pay revision orders till their retirement and to disburse them all the pensionary benefits on the basis of their such revised salary and disburse the arrears due to them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

This original application is disposed of as above.”

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are now before this Court