Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not allow interference unless there is a manifest error by the lower tribunal.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The petitioner, who is the applicant in T.A.No.525 of 2014 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, 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 the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that Transfer Application.

2. The petitioner-applicant herein filed W.P.(C)No.25799 of 2007, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs;

“i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P11 and quash the same to the extend the same denying petitioner’s pension and ex-gratia pension by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or directions

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to count the period of deputation in private company along with Government service for the purpose of counting qualifying service for pensionary benefits including ex-gratia pension considering the fact of remittance of pension contributions and leave salary contributions to the Government while petitioner was on deputation;

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to disburse pensionary benefits and ex-gratia pension to the petitioner;

iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents to calculate pensionary benefit considering the salary of the Assistant Professors on the basis that petitioner became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor after completion of his 10 years service;”

3. As per the pleadings in that writ petition, the petitioner retired from the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering from the Government Engineering College, Kozhikkode, on 30.06.2003. He entered service on 24.01.1975, as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering at the Engineering College, Thrissur. As per Exts.P1 and P2 orders dated 20.05.1980 and 01.08.1984 of the Government, the petitioner was on deputation in M/s. Mayilvahanam Industries, Shornur, from 11.06.1980 to 04.03.1985. During the period of deputation, his pension contributions and leave salary contributions were promptly and without fail remitted to the Government. The petitioner has 12 years qualifying service for pension. But, by Ext.P11 letter dated 06.07.2007, the 3^rd respondent, Accountant General, had denied the pension and ex-gratia pension to the petitioner, stating the reason that there are no rules to count the deputation in a private company along with the Government service for calculation as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Ext.P11 letter was issued by the 3^rd respondent without considering the fact that the petitioner had remitted pension contributions and leave salary contributions to the Government while he was on deputation. Pension contributions and leave salary contributions were remitted for the purpose of counting the deputation period along with Government service as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. With these contentions, the petitioner-applicant filed the above writ petition.

4. The 1^st respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 10.11.2009 in the writ petition, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Later, on the constitution of the Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.525 of 2014.

5. In the T.A, the 4^th respondent filed a reply statement dated 07.02.2025.

6. By the impugne