Employees serving in local government bodies are entitled to pay protection by reckoning their prior government service. High Courts, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, will only interfere with tribunal orders if they are palpably perverse, illegal, or result in a manifest failure of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1.The respondents in O.A.(EKM)No.1516 of 2022 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 Ext.P4 order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The respondent-applicant filed O.A.(EKM)No.1516 of 2022, invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) Call for records pertaining to Annexures A5, passed by the 3^rd respondent and A6 and A8 orders passed by the 4^th respondent and set aside the same.

(b) Declare that the applicant is entitled for the protection of pay and fixation of his salary and all other service benefits, considering his past service with the Municipal Common Service”.

3. Going by the averments in the original application, the respondent is presently working in the post of Senior Clerk, Performance Audit Unit II, Kunnamangalam, Office of District Joint Director, Kozhikode. He was appointed as a Lab Assistant in the Higher Secondary Education Department by the advice Letter No.DV(I) 2690/04 dated 17.01.2007. Later, the respondent was relieved from the said post and was directly recruited to the Municipal Common Service as LD Clerk at Kozhikode Municipal Corporation Office, for a monthly pay scale of Rs.5250-8390 by virtue of Annexure A2 advice dated 08.11.2011 and A2(a) Order dated 07.01.2012. Subsequently, he was relieved from the said post and was directly appointed as an LD clerk in the Panchayat department at Kodiyuthur Grama Panchayat as per Annexure A3 advice dated 19.06.2014 and A3(a) Order dated 21.07.2014. During this period, the salary he used to receive from the Municipal Common Service was protected. Thereafter, in the year 2020, the respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk and he joined the Vazhakkad Grama Panchayat in Malappuram District by order No.PAN/46/2019-E4(DP) dated 02.10.2020, passed by the Panchayat Director. Being so, his pay was also fixed as per Rule 28A Part 1 of the Kerala Service Rules by the Secretary of Vazhakkad Panchayat as per Annexure A4 proceedings dated 19.04.2021. But the 3^rd petitioner returned the respondent’s service book to the Secretary of Vazhakkad Grama Panchayat by Annexure A5 letter dated 06.11.2021 stating that the respondent is neither entitled for protection of his pay nor entitled for pay fixation as per Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules considering it as a higher post, since he has been directly recruited to the Municipal Common Service from the post of Lab Assistant and also directed to recover the salary that was given improperly. Soon, the 4^th petitioner passed Annexure A6 order dated 11.03.2022, fixing the respondent’s pay without reckoning his prior service. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent submitted Annexure A7 representation dated 20.06.2022 to the 1^st petitioner. During the pendency of Annexure A7 representation, the 4^th petitioner passed Annexure A8 order dated 03.07.2022, directing the Secretary of Kodiyathur Grama Panchayat to recover the excess salary paid consequent to the wrong fixation of pay to the respondent during the period 27.08.2014 to 20.10.2020. The respondent is entitled to all the benefits of fixation of pay as per Rule 28A of Kerala Service Rules .

4. The 3^rd petitioner filed a reply statement dated 16.11.2022, opposing the reliefs sought for in the original application and