Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 3258
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
S.V. Seetha devi W/0 Rajkumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Secretary To Government
OP(KAT) NO. 476 OF 2025
Decided on : 05-12-2025
For the Appellant : SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SMT.BINDU.K SHRI.SACHIN.P.K SHRI.VARGHESE XAVIER SHRI.ANANTHU R.S.
For the Respondent: SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP
The court affirmed that termination of service results in forfeiture of past service benefits, which precludes pension eligibility, reinforcing established principles against relitigating previously adjudicated matters.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Kerala Service Rules, Rule 29(a) - Pension eligibility - Petition challenging Tribunal's dismissal of claim for pension after termination from service cited grounds of appeal regarding salary entitlement and caste verification - Tribunal found applicant's termination valid under KSR, reinforcing forfeiture of past service, thus dismissing application. (Paras 3, 9, 16, 27)
(B) Supervisory jurisdiction - High Court cannot interfere with Tribunal's findings unless proved to be perverse or illegal - No grounds for such interference established herein. (Paras 4, 6)
(C) Res judicata - The applicant's previous challenges and the findings related to caste claims barred further litigation regarding pension eligibility - Cited previous judgments reinforce finality in adjudication and disallow further claims based on non-grounds. (Paras 20-26)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought pension after termination based on caste verification disputes. Previous judgments upheld invalidity of caste claims leading to her termination.
Findings of Court:
The dismissal of the original application was upheld, confirming the impugned decisions and affirming the validity of termination under Rule 29(a) of KSR.
Issues: Main issues addressed were applicant's eligibility for pension and the validity of grounds for termination of service based on caste claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the application of KSR Rule 29(a), stating that termination entails forfeiture of service, validating the Tribunal’s conclusions on dismissal.
Result: Original petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's application for pension benefits. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. tribunal's dismissal of the application. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. contentions regarding pension entitlement. (Para 6 , 7 , 15) |
| 4. tribunal's consideration of previous judgments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. supreme court's modification regarding salary. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. principles of res judicata and the henderson principle. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. dismissal of the original petition. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendra, J.
1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1274 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking an order directing the 1st respondent State to allow pension to the applicant for the 26 years of regular service rendered by her; an order directing the 2nd respondent Secretary to Government, SC/ST Development Department to modify Annexure A4 order dated 04.07.2011 terminating the applicant from service, so as to grant pension for the 26 years of service rendered by her; to set aside Annexure A11 communication dated 06.12.2018 of the 3rd respondent District Collector, which deny pension benefits to the applicant; to direct the 1st respondent State to consider and pass orders on Annexure A13 representation dated 01.07.2022 made by the applicant, within a time limit, after hearing the applicant.
2. Along with O.A.No.1274 of 2022, the petitioner- applicant has produced Annexures A1 to A14. A copy of O.A.No.1274 of 2022 is marked in this original petition as Ext.P1.
In O.A.No.1274 of 2022, on behalf of the 1st respondent State, a reply statement dated 21.06.2024 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought for, a copy of which is marked in this original petition as Ext.P2. The applicant filed Ext.P3 rejoinder dated 11.06.2025. The learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted Ext.P4 argument notes dated nil.
3. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal passed Ext.P5 order dated 27.08.2025 in O.A.No.1274 of 2022, whereby that original application stands dismissed, for the reasons stated therein. Paragraphs 9, 10 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus;
“9. Admittedly, the applicant was terminated from service. As per Rule 29(a) of KSR Part III, it is stipulated that resignation, dismissal or removal from service entails forfeiture of past service. The respondents place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in E.K. Varghese [ 2016 (1) KHC 35 ], wherein the constitutionality of this rule has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court.
10. In the light of the fact that the applicant was terminated from service under the provisions in Rule 29(a) of KSR Part III, we do not find the contention of the applicant that she is eligible for pension for the period she served under the 2nd respondent is sustainable.
Accordingly, this Original Application is dismissed.”
4. Challenging Ext.P5 order dated 27.08.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1274 of 2022, the petitioner-applicant is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would contend that the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P5 order dated 27.08.2025 in O.A.No.1274 of 2022 is perverse and patently illegal, which warrants interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal passed Ext.P5 order, without properly understanding the effect of Annexure A6 order dated 18.08.2017 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10617 of 2017, and also Annexure A8 order dated 03.10.2018 in M.A.No.1617 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.10617 of 2017. In view of Annexures A6 and A8 judgment/ order of the Apex Court, the Tribunal ought
