The High Court under Article 227 exercises supervisory jurisdiction and will not interfere with Tribunal decisions unless there is serious dereliction of duty or perverse reasoning. Here, no such grounds existed.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioners who are the applicants 1, 2, 5 to 7, 10, 11, 15 to 17, 20 to 27 and 29 in O.A.No.768 of 2021 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, out of the 30 applicants in the original application, Serial Nos. 1 to 25 are working in the Scheduled Tribes Development Department as Tribal Development Officers, Assistant Tribal Development Officers, Special Extension Officers and Senior Superintendents, etc and serial numbers 26 to 30 are retired employees of the Scheduled Tribes Development Department who worked in various categories while in service. As per the 9^th pay Revision order bearing G.O (P) No. 85/2011/Fin, dated 26.02.2011, the Government had decided to implement the recommendations of the pay revision commission ratio/percentage based grade promotion scheme for various categories of Government employees with effect from 01.02.2011. As per the scheme in all departments, 25% of the senior Superintendents and equated posts like Manager will be on higher grade and 25% of the posts of Junior Superintendents and equated posts like Manager will be on Higher Grade. But in the Scheduled Tribes Development Department, this scheme has not been implemented by the 2^nd respondent. Umpteen number of representations were made before the 2^nd respondent by the applicants, but to no avail. All other departments, including the Scheduled Castes Development Department under the 1^st respondent has implemented the scheme. At last, on the compulsion of the employees, the 2^nd respondent implemented the scheme in 2016 by sanctioning Higher Grade to 24 employees as per proceedings dated 18.05.2016. But after that, to date, no steps have been taken by the 2^nd respondent for the implementation of the scheme as provided in the pay revision order. As per the 10^th pay revision order, 25% Higher Grade to the post of Senior Superintendents and equated posts are to be continued, and the scheme of granting Higher Grade to Junior Superintendents and interchangeable posts has been enhanced from 25% to 1/3. But, the 2^nd respondent has not taken any steps to implement the schemes as provided in the 9^th and 10^th pay revision orders, whereas similarly placed persons in all other departments have benefited from this scheme. Aggrieved by this, one Rajesh Kumar, Senior Superintendent of the Scheduled Tribes Development Department, filed O.A.No.1630 of 2018 before the Tribunal, praying that Higher Grade may be sanctioned to him. The Tribunal disposed of that O.A. on 15.10.2018, directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation pending before the 1^st respondent within three months. The 1^st respondent issued an order on 30.11.2020 rejecting the claim of Rajesh Kumar. Thereafter, on 05.10.2020, some of the applicants submitted a representation before the 1^st respondent. But no action has been taken by the 1^st respondent on this matter till date. With these pleadings, the applicants filed the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may quash G.O. (Rt) No. 990/2020/SC/ST Development Department dated 30.11.2020 issued by the 1^st respondent (Annexure -A15) which adversely affect the legitimate legal rights of the applicants.

(