Rule 3, Kerala Service Rules; Cannot Withhold Pension Without Any Pending Disciplinary Or Judicial Proceedings: Kerala HC

Background

Dr. Ciza Thomas retired as a principal of Govt Engineering College, in 2023. Before her retirement, she had served as the Vice Chancellor of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University. Her appointment was made by the then governor of Kerala, under Section 13(7) of the of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015; the provision allowed her temporary appointment up to six months.

Soon after completing her term as Vice chancellor, she resumed her role as Principal and retired in 2023. However, disciplinary proceedings were initiated soon after her retirement accusing of her misconduct, solely for accepting the Vice Chancellor role. Aggrieved, she challenged the show cause notice before the High court. The court quashed the notice and held that it was illegal.

The state then filed a Special Leave Petition at the supreme court, which was dismissed on 5-03-2024. Despite this, Ciza Thomas did not receive pension or other benefits. The state said that it had filed a review petition before the Supreme Court and was waiting for its outcome. Aggrieved, Ciza Thomas approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the provisional pension to be disbursed. However, no reply was filed in the Tribunal for several months.

Ciza Thomas then filed a writ petition under Article 227, seeking her full terminal dues.

Arguments

Dr. Thomas submitted that the State withholding her pension was arbitrary and without any legal basis. She argued that there were no departmental or judicial proceedings pending against her. She explained that the earlier disciplinary action had already been quashed. She submitted that in these circumstances, Rule 3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (“KSR”) prohibits the State from withholding pension and other retirement dues.

On the other hand, the state govt argued that the only reason for withholding pension was the pending review petition before the Supreme Court and the need to assess any other liabilities from her prior service. The State explained that Rule 3 of Part III, KSR, allows the govt to withhold pension to recover losses or while any departmental/judicial proceedings are pending. The state argued that if no liability is found, the entire amount would be released promptly.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court noted that the state had no pending proceedings against Dr. Thomas. The court explained that the disciplinary proceedings had been quashed, and no other judicial proceedings were pending either. The court further mentioned that there was also no quantified liability or any liability certificate against her.

Secondly, the court held that under Rule 3 of Part III, KSR, pension can only be withheld, if any departmental or judicial proceedings are pending, or if there is a loss that needs to be recovered. In the absence of either, the court held that withholding pension is illegal.

Thirdly, the court noted that the State's actions were intended to harass Dr. Thomas simply because she had accepted the role of Vice Chancellor on the Governor's instructions. The court criticised the state for abusing its authority and not disbursing Dr. Thomas' legitimate dues.

Fourthly, the court noted that the petition was wrongly filed under Article 227, as there was no manifest error committed by the Tribunal. However, the court held that it would invoke its powers under Article 226, as the issue at hand involved a violation of fundamental rights. Citing Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi 1980 INSC 218, the court held that the state's action violated Article 14. The court clarified that constitutional courts cannot refrain from acting when the state exercises its authority arbitrarily.

Fifthly, the court held that when the state performs unlawful actions that violate fundamental rights, the constitutional courts are justified in exercising jurisdiction even in ongoing matters. The court clarified that the Tribunal cannot do the same, as it is merely a review forum for service disputes.

Thus, the court allowed the writ petition and directed that all pension benefits be released to Dr. Ciza Thomas within two weeks of the judgement.

Decided on: 30.05.2025

Citation: 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 Government Pleader Mr. A.J. Varghese