The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is limited to correcting manifest errors by lower courts, not to re-evaluate their findings in pension-related disputes.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicants in O.A.(EKM) No.850 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (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 16.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioners are unmarried daughters of late P.J Jose, who died on 13.12.2013 and late M.T Aley, who died on 13.10.2021. The father of the petitioners was a Headmaster, and the mother was a P.D. Teacher. According to the petitioners, after the death of their mother, they applied for family pension, and the respondents allowed family pension of their mother alone to the 2^nd petitioner, which, according to them, was without following the statutory provisions. The petitioners pleaded that they are entitled to receive a monthly pension at the rate of Rs.28,740 instead of Rs.10,680/-, which is the combined family pension of the parents of the petitioners. Though the petitioners submitted individual applications dated 28.04.2023, which are marked as Annexures A4 and A5 for getting family pension of their deceased parents, by Annexure A7 communication dated 11.03.2024, the 4^th respondent rejected Annexure A4 application of the 1^st petitioner. By Annexure A6 intimation slip dated 13.11.2023, the 5^th respondent authorised the sanction of family pension of the deceased mother alone to the 2^nd petitioner. In Annexure A7 intimation, the 4^th respondent stated that the family pension application could be resubmitted if orders are obtained. The petitioners submitted Annexure A8 representation dated 11.09.2024 to the 4^th respondent to reconsider Annexure A7 rejection of the family pension application made by the 1^st petitioner. However, Annexure A8 representation was rejected by the 4^th respondent by Annexure A9 intimation dated 17.10.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners filed O.A.(EKM)No. 850 of 2025 before the Tribunal, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, contending that Annexure A8 representation was arbitrarily rejected. In the original application, the petitioners have sought a direction to respondents 3 to 5 to fix and grant family pension due to the petitioners with interest from 01.11.2021 onwards.

3. By the impugned Ext.P2 order dated 16.09.2025, the Tribunal disposed of the original application. Paragraphs 5, 6 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

“5. Rule 90(7)(b) of Part III KSR reads as follows:

"(7) The contributory family pension will be admissible:-

(b) In the case of unmarried son/daughter till he/she attains the age of 25 years or marriage or starts earning his/her livelihood, whichever is earlier. In the event of death of father and mother, who were both Government employees/pensioners, the children below the age of 25 years will be eligible to draw two family pension till they attain the age of 25 years or getting married or employed whichever is earlier subject to the following limits, provided both the parents were governed by these rules:-

(a) If both family pensions are in the higher rate or if one family pension is in the higher rate and the other in the normal rate, the total of the two shall not exceed 50% of the highest pay in the State scale i.e., 50% of Rs.1,20,000 viz., Rs.60,000.”

(b) If both family Pensions are in the normal rate, the total of the two shall not exceed 30% of the highest pay in the State Scale, i.e., 30% of Rs. 1,20,000 viz., Rs.36,000.

xxxx xxxx xxxx".

From the above it is clear that two family pens