Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction limited to patent perversity or manifest injustice; no interference with Tribunal's enforcement of final service benefits order.

The respondents in O.A.No.1522 of 2024 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 Ext.P3 order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The respondents-applicants filed O.A.No.1522 of 2024 before the Tribunal, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs;

“i. To issue appropriate direction or orders setting aside Annexure A3, A4, A5, A7, A9, A10, A15, A16 and A18 orders.

ii. To issue appropriate direction or orders directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.2,59,849/- to the 1^st applicant and Rs.2,22,985/- to the 2^nd applicant, and Rs.2,19,220/- to the 3^rd applicant with interest @ 12% from the respective date of retirement of the applicants till the date of payment.

iii. To issue appropriate direction or orders directing the respondents to refix the pay and pension of the applicants by granting the benefit of 15 years higher grade w.e.f. 01.03.2011 and to pay the arrears of salary and pension consequent to the refixation with interest @ 12% from the date of Annexure A3 to A5 till the date of payment.” 3. The respondents-applicants joined service as Civil Police Officers and had completed the basic training for a period of nine months. Respondents 1 and 2 retired from service on 31.05.2023, and the 3rdrespondent retired from service on 31.01.2024 on attaining superannuation. The counting of the aforesaid training period of nine months for increment and other service benefits was raised by some of the Police Constables by filing original applications before the Tribunal, which attained finality by the judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.38 of 2024 and connected matters. Therefore, raising the grievance that despite the order of the Tribunal in Annexure A11, the aforesaid training period was not reckoned for the benefits, including for Time Bound Higher Grade, and their pay was ordered to be re- fixed without reckoning the above period, the respondents-

applicants filed the original application.

4. On behalf of the 3^rd petitioner herein, a reply statement dated 19.11.2024 was filed in the original application, producing therewith Annexures R3(a) to R3(h) documents.

5. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal passed Ext.P3 impugned order dated 30.01.2025, whereby, the original application was disposed of by setting aside the orders impugned in the original application and also directed the 1^st petitioner to issue fresh orders on the grievance addressed by the respondents- applicants in strict adherence to the law laid down by the Tribunal in Annexure A11 order and in O.P.(KAT)No.348 of 2024 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present original petition.

6. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents would point out that the Tribunal passed Ext.P3 impugned order relying on the judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.38 of 2024. Though the Government took up the matter in appeal before the Apex Court by filing SLP(C) Diary No.51975 of 2025, the said SLP was also dismissed as per the order dated 07.11.2025.

8. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and t