Judicial supervision under Article 227 cannot correct mere errors, only grave misconduct or failure to follow legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.1168 of 2018 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, has filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P3 order dated 02.04.2024 of the Tribunal in that original application, which was one filed by the petitioner-applicant invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , to set aside Annexure A20 Government order dated 01.12.2017; a declaration that the total service rendered by the applicant for 28 years, 11 months and 5 days is liable to be reckoned as qualifying service for pensionary benefits; and an order directing the respondents to grant the applicant pension and other retirement benefits reckoning his total pensionable service of 28 years, 11 months and 5 days and grant him all consequential monetary benefits.

2. In O.A.(EKM)No.1168 of 2018, the 3^rd respondent Director of Collegiate Education filed Ext.P2 reply statement dated 13.11.2018, opposing the reliefs sought for. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P3 order dated 02.04.2024, dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 7, 8 and also the last paragraph of that order, read thus:

“7. When admittedly the applicant has availed leave without allowances while he was working in the Kerala Kalamandalam, the fact that he was working in Collegiate Education Department after availing leave without allowances from Kerala Kalamandalam would not make it pensionable, as long as his lien continued in Kerala Kalamandalam itself. The applicant does not have a case that he entered service in the Collegiate Education Department after getting relieved from Kerala Kalamandalam. The employees of Kerala Kalamandalam are brought under the pension scheme and in case the applicant continued in Kerala Kalamandalam, without taking leave without allowances the entire service could have been reckoned towards qualifying service. In case he joined Government service after getting relieved from Kalamandalam, then also the said period would have been reckoned towards qualifying service.

8. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder or produced any order before this Tribunal which would show that the period he availed leave without allowances for the purpose of other employment under Appendix XIIA can be reckoned for the purpose of pension. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Government in Annexure A20 or with the action of the Accountant General in authorising his pensionary benefits. The original application is accordingly dismissed.”

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The issue that requires consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P3 order dated 02.04.2024 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.1168 of 2018, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India .

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would contend that the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P3 order dated 02.04.2024 in O.A.(EKM)No.1168 of 2018 for declining the reliefs sought for in the original application is arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse and the same is liable to be interfered with in this original petition. Various contentions raised by the applicant were not properly dealt with by the Tribunal, while dismissing the original application.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that valid reasons have been stated by the Tribunal in Ext.P3 order dated 02.04.