-
by sayum
17 April 2026 1:44 PM
“Interference Lies Only Where There Is ‘Patent Perversity or Gross Failure of Justice’ — Not for Re-appreciation of Facts”, Kerala High Court declined to interfere with an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal rejecting a claim for reckoning redeployment service for pensionary benefits.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited, and cannot be invoked to reappreciate facts or substitute the Court’s own view unless there is patent illegality, perversity, or grave injustice.
The petitioner, a physically disabled employee (above 55%), had been redeployed in the defunct Calicut Development Authority (CDA) between 10.02.1999 and 29.06.2002 during a special government initiative.
Subsequently, he joined the Women and Child Development Department, from where he retired in 2024. He sought to count his earlier CDA service as qualifying service for pension, claiming parity with similarly placed disabled employees whose services were regularised.
However, his representation was rejected by the competent authority, and notably, that rejection order was never challenged. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application, leading to the present petition under Article 227.
The central issue before the Court was the scope of interference under Article 227 and whether the Tribunal’s order suffered from any legal infirmity warranting such interference.
The Court reiterated the settled law in emphatic terms: “The High Court cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment… interference is restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law.”
It further clarified the threshold: “No interference is called for unless the reasoning is palpably perverse, patently unreasonable, or there is manifest error or gross failure of justice.”
On facts, the Court found that the Tribunal had considered all relevant aspects, including the crucial fact that the rejection of the petitioner’s representation was never challenged, which went to the root of the claim.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s entire claim was built on seeking retrospective recognition of service rendered in CDA, but: “Annexure A10 order rejecting the claim was not challenged by the petitioner.”
This omission was fatal, as the foundational administrative decision remained unassailed.
The Court also rejected reliance on Maya P.C. v. State of Kerala, observing that: “The issue in that case concerned probation and promotion… the present case relates to pensionary benefits, and is entirely different.”
Thus, the precedent was held inapplicable.
On the scope of Article 227, the Court relied on multiple Supreme Court decisions and reiterated: “Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors… it is not meant to act as a ‘court of appeal’.”
Applying these principles, the Bench concluded that the Tribunal’s decision: “Does not suffer from perversity or patent illegality… nor is there any ground to hold that it resulted in gross injustice.”
The Kerala High Court dismissed the original petition, reinforcing the strict limits of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
The ruling underscores that service claims, especially relating to pension, must be pursued through proper procedural channels, and that failure to challenge foundational administrative orders can be fatal to the case. It also reiterates that High Courts will not re-evaluate factual findings of tribunals unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Date of Decision: 18.03.2026
