Rule 3, Kerala Service Rules; Cannot Withhold Pension Without Any Pending Disciplinary Or Judicial Proceedings: Kerala HC
Kerala Excessive Court docket: A division bench consisting of Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Johnson John held that withholding pension with none pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings was unlawful. The courtroom held that such actions violate Article 14. The courtroom exercised its jurisdiction underneath Article 226 regardless of the petition being filed underneath Article 227. The courtroom famous that constitutional courts can’t chorus from appearing when the state workout routines its authority arbitrarily.
Background
Dr. Ciza Thomas retired as a principal of Govt Engineering Faculty, in 2023. Earlier than her retirement, she had served because the Vice Chancellor of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological College. Her appointment was made by the then governor of Kerala, underneath Part 13(7) of the of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological College Act, 2015; the supply allowed her momentary appointment as much as six months.
Quickly after finishing her time period as Vice chancellor, she resumed her position as Principal and retired in 2023. Nevertheless, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated quickly after her retirement accusing of her misconduct, solely for accepting the Vice Chancellor position. Aggrieved, she challenged the present trigger discover earlier than the Excessive courtroom. The courtroom quashed the discover and held that it was unlawful.
The state then filed a Particular Depart Petition on the supreme courtroom, which was dismissed on 5-03-2024. Regardless of this, Ciza Thomas didn’t obtain pension or different advantages. The state mentioned that it had filed a assessment petition earlier than the Supreme Court docket and was ready for its final result. Aggrieved, Ciza Thomas approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the provisional pension to be disbursed. Nevertheless, no reply was filed within the Tribunal for a number of months.
Ciza Thomas then filed a writ petition underneath Article 227, searching for her full terminal dues.
Arguments
Dr. Thomas submitted that the State withholding her pension was arbitrary and with none authorized foundation. She argued that there have been no departmental or judicial proceedings pending in opposition to her. She defined that the sooner disciplinary motion had already been quashed. She submitted that in these circumstances, Rule 3 of Half III of the Kerala Service Guidelines (“KSR”) prohibits the State from withholding pension and different retirement dues.
However, the state govt argued that the one purpose for withholding pension was the pending assessment petition earlier than the Supreme Court docket and the necessity to assess every other liabilities from her prior service. The State defined that Rule 3 of Half III, KSR, permits the government to withhold pension to get better losses or whereas any departmental/judicial proceedings are pending. The state argued that if no legal responsibility is discovered, the complete quantity could be launched promptly.
Court docket’s Reasoning
Firstly, the courtroom famous that the state had no pending proceedings in opposition to Dr. Thomas. The courtroom defined that the disciplinary proceedings had been quashed, and no different judicial proceedings have been pending both. The courtroom additional talked about that there was additionally no quantified legal responsibility or any legal responsibility certificates in opposition to her.
Secondly, the courtroom held that underneath Rule 3 of Half III, KSR, pension can solely be withheld, if any departmental or judicial proceedings are pending, or if there’s a loss that must be recovered. Within the absence of both, the courtroom held that withholding pension is unlawful.
Thirdly, the courtroom famous that the State’s actions have been supposed to harass Dr. Thomas just because she had accepted the position of Vice Chancellor on the Governor’s directions. The courtroom criticised the state for abusing its authority and never disbursing Dr. Thomas’ authentic dues.
Fourthly, the courtroom famous that the petition was wrongly filed underneath Article 227, as there was no manifest error dedicated by the Tribunal. Nevertheless, the courtroom held that it might invoke its powers underneath Article 226, as the problem at hand concerned a violation of elementary rights. Citing Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi 1980 INSC 218, the courtroom held that the state’s motion violated Article 14. The courtroom clarified that constitutional courts can’t chorus from appearing when the state workout routines its authority arbitrarily.
Fifthly, the courtroom held that when the state performs illegal actions that violate elementary rights, the constitutional courts are justified in exercising jurisdiction even in ongoing issues. The courtroom clarified that the Tribunal can’t do the identical, as it’s merely a assessment discussion board for service disputes.
Thus, the courtroom allowed the writ petition and directed that all pension advantages be launched to Dr. Ciza Thomas inside two weeks of the judgement.
Selected: 30.05.2025
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Nisha George with Mr. George Poonthottam (Senior Advocate), Mr. A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, Ms. Kavya Varma M.M., and Ms. Silpa Sreekumar
Counsel for the Respondents: Senior Authorities Pleader Mr. A.J. Varghese
