Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10027

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
MANAGER, AGED 56 YEARS, AM UPS KOORIKUZHI – Appellant
Versus
JINI PAUL – Respondent
RP NO. 1675 OF 2025|WP(C) NO.31148 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.D.DILEEP, SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE, SHRI.DHEERAJ PRADEEP C., SHRI.DHANJAY DILEEP C., SMT.M.L.REMYA
For the Respondents: SRI.V.VENUGOPAL, SRI.M.A.FAYAZ, SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

The court underscores the necessity of procedural fairness, mandating that administrative decisions comply with ongoing revisional remedies.

Headnote:In the context of RP No. 1675 of 2025, the High Court of Kerala assessed the procedural issues concerning the earlier order dated 20.11.2025 regarding the appointment and salary determination of the LPST. It found that procedural errors occurred due to lack of notice to the 7th respondent, thus warranting a correction in the earlier ruling. The court held that a suitable decision regarding the Manager's Revision Petition must precede the salary determination for the petitioner (para 1-3). The key issues centered around the disbursement of salaries and due process in administrative decisions, concluding that implementation of prior orders must align with pending revisional remedies. The court emphasized the importance of fundamental rights to procedural fairness and proper consultation. The operative order was modified, directing adherence to Ext.P17, contingent on future considerations before the Director General of Education (para 2-3). The review petition is disposed of as above.

Table of Content
1. review petition on procedural grounds. (Para 1)
2. necessity to respect revisional remedies. (Para 2)
3. final order contingent on past decisions. (Para 3)

SRI.V.VENUGOPAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

06.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2026 W.P.(C) No.31148 of 2025 was disposed of directing the competent among the respondents to implement Ext.P17 order dated 30.10.2025 of the Deputy Director of Education. This Court further directed that while passing orders on Ext.P17, the respondents shall take a decision and pay eligible salary to the petitioner. The review petitioner was the 7^th respondent in the writ petition. However, no notice was served on the 7^th respondent while disposing of the writ petition.

2. The 7^th respondent submitted that he had filed a Review Petition against Ext.P17 order and this Court in W.P.(C) No.42011 of 2025 had directed the 1^st respondent-

Director General of Education to consider the revision petition filed by the Manager. If the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.31148 of 2025 is implemented, the Manager will lose his revisional remedy. To that extent, there is an error apparent on the face of the records, contends the review petitioner. Unless the judgment is corrected, the 7^th respondent-Manager will be losing his revisional remedy.

3. In the afore circumstances of the case, the judgment dated 20.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.31148 of 2025 is reviewed. The operative portion of the judgment shall stand substituted as follows:

“The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing competent among respondents 5 to 7 to implement Ext.P17 order and retain the petitioner as LPST as ordered in Ext.P17. While passing orders on Ext.P17, the respondents shall take a decision and pay eligible salary to the petitioner. The afore directions will be complied with after a decision is taken on Manager's Revision Petition and subject to the outcome of the revision petition preferred by the 7^th respondent before the Director General of Education.”

The review petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10027

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMN. NAGARESH, JMANAGER, AGED 56 YEARS, AM UPS KOORIKUZHI – AppellantVersusJINI PAUL – RespondentRP NO. 1675 OF 2025|WP(C) NO.31148 OF 2025

The court underscores the necessity of procedural fairness, mandating that administrative decisions comply with ongoing revisional remedies.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
MANAGER, AGED 56 YEARS, AM UPS KOORIKUZHI – Appellant
Versus
JINI PAUL – Respondent
RP NO. 1675 OF 2025|WP(C) NO.31148 OF 2025