No Judicial or Disciplinary Proceedings Pending – Pension Cannot Be Withheld Based on Speculative Review: Kerala High Court Directs State to Release Pension of Former Vice Chancellor

“Constitutional Courts Are Duty-Bound to Enforce Fundamental Rights Even When Tribunal Lacks Power to Do So” – Kerala High Court, in a strongly worded judgment, condemned the arbitrary and retaliatory withholding of pensionary benefits of Dr. Ciza Thomas, former Principal of the Government Engineering College and ex-officio temporary Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, by the State of Kerala.

Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John held that the denial of pension despite the absence of any pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings was a flagrant violation of Rule 3 of Part III, Kerala Service Rules (KSR), and an unconstitutional act infringing Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the State to release all pensionary and terminal benefits within two weeks, invoking its powers under Article 226 despite the petition having been filed under Article 227.

Dr. Ciza Thomas retired as Principal on 31 March 2023, following a 30+ year public service career. In November 2022, the Governor of Kerala, acting as Chancellor, temporarily appointed her as Vice Chancellor under Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015. The State Government challenged her appointment but failed to overturn it in court.

Despite multiple rounds of litigation, including a Supreme Court dismissal of the State's SLP on 5 March 2024, the State continued to withhold her pension and retirement dues, citing a pending review petition and the possibility of assessing departmental liability.

Earlier disciplinary action against her, initiated for “assuming the Vice Chancellor’s post without permission,” had already been quashed by a Division Bench of the High Court in O.P. (KAT) No. 170/2023, which ruled that her appointment was not by personal volition but under statutory authority.

Pension Cannot Be Withheld Without Pending Proceedings

The High Court held that withholding of pension under Rule 3 of Part III KSR is permissible only in specific circumstances—when judicial or departmental proceedings are pending or liability has been quantified.

“No departmental or judicial proceedings are pending against Dr. Ciza Thomas. We are astonished to see how the State is using its authority arbitrarily to deny legitimate dues of a retired government servant.” [Para 7]

The Court found that the State was neither pursuing any new proceedings nor had it quantified any loss or liability. The mere pendency of a review petition before the Supreme Court, especially after the original SLP was dismissed, could not justify indefinite withholding of benefits.

Enforcement of Fundamental Rights Justifies Exercise of Article 226 Jurisdiction

Although the petition was filed under Article 227, the Court invoked its plenary powers under Article 226, given the manifest violation of fundamental rights.

“When the authority of the Government becomes a wield to harass government servants, can the constitutional court gloss over such arbitrary action to frustrate the legitimate entitlements?” [Para 7]

Citing Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722], the Court observed that arbitrariness in State action is antithetical to Article 14, and courts are constitutionally obligated to intervene when public power is misused.

The Court emphasized that only constitutional courts can enforce fundamental rights—tribunals may adjudicate their violation but lack the authority to enforce.

“The enforcement of fundamental rights is a distinct constitutional function... not centred on resolving disputes in the traditional adversarial sense, but concerned with ensuring that the actions of the State conform to constitutional norms.” [Para 12]

Constitutional Supervision Over Tribunals Remains Intact

Relying on the landmark ruling in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261], the Bench reaffirmed that administrative tribunals cannot displace High Courts in matters concerning enforcement of constitutional rights.

“In matters like this arising under Article 227, the constitutional courts will not hold any enquiry on entitlement under service law, but rather focus on the action of the State violating fundamental rights.” [Para 14]

The Court added that even though the Tribunal was properly seized of the matter, constitutional courts can directly enforce rights where arbitrariness is manifest, especially in non-contested factual scenarios.

State’s Justification Found Baseless and Retaliatory

The only justification offered by the State was that a review petition had been filed in the Supreme Court, and liability could potentially arise within three years under KSR rules. The Court rejected both grounds:

“No one has a case against her that the liability is quantified and a liability certificate has been issued… The Government exercised its authority and power in flagrant violation of her fundamental rights and to harass her.” [Para 16]

It held that pension is a property right under the Constitution, and cannot be withheld except in accordance with law.

The Court allowed the petition and directed:

“The official respondents are directed to release the entire terminal benefits due to her within two weeks from today.” [Para 16]

For the question of interest, the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal.

This judgment delivers a sharp rebuke to the State’s misuse of power to harass a retired public servant, who had merely obeyed a statutory appointment by the Governor. It clarifies the boundaries between administrative tribunals and constitutional courts, especially in cases involving arbitrary state action, and reaffirms that pensionary benefits cannot be held hostage to speculative or retaliatory State conduct.

The Kerala High Court has thus strengthened the principle that constitutional courts are not passive observers when fundamental rights are at stake, and that enforcement, not mere adjudication, is their paramount role.

“This Court cannot ignore the gross injustice meted out to such a distinguished government servant; we will have to protect her pensionary right, which is a property right under the Constitution.” [Para 16]

Date of Decision: 30 May 2025