Kerala High Court Slams State For 'Harassing' Former VC In-Charge Of KTU Ciza Thomas, Orders Release Of Pension

Notably, she had assumed the office of Vice Chancellor of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, as per an order of the Chancellor, the then Governor of Kerala, dated November 3, 2022. That was a temporary appointment made by the Chancellor, invoking Section 13(7) of the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, pending a regular appointment. 

The then Governor made the appointment while there was an existing conflict with the State regarding appointment of VCs to various universities.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John remarked that the Government was harassing Dr. Thomas for accepting the appointment to the VC post.

“We note that the Government exercised its authority and power in flagrant violation of her fundamental rights and to harass her for taking up the office of the Vice Chancellor at the instance of the Chancellor, the then Governor.”

The court further said:

"No disciplinary action is pending against her. The Disciplinary proceedings against her have been quashed and set aside by this Court. No judicial proceedings are pending against her. No one has a case against her that the liability is quantified and a liability certificate has been issued. Rule 3 of Part III, KSR enables the Government to withhold pension only when departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are pending. In the absence of any pending departmental or judicial proceedings, the Government cannot withhold pensionary benefits of Dr. Ciza Thomas...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, and it cannot be denied as such unless by a procedure established by law"

The State had taken the defense that a review petition is pending before the Supreme Court regarding whether Dr. Ciza Thomas violated Government Service Conduct contemplated under Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 by assuming the office of the Vice Chancellor. In that matter, the Division Bench of the High Court had already held that the show cause notice sent against her alleging misconduct was illegal and unsustainable. A Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The State also said that her liability during her service amount has to be assessed and quantified before releasing the DCRG.

The Court however said that the Government violated the fundamental rights of Dr. Ciza Thomas and the Court was interfering against such arbitrary use of authority.

“We are astonished to see how the State is using its authority arbitrarily to deny legitimate dues of a retired government servant. When 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?”

Consequent to High Court holding that the show cause notice sent to Dr. Thomas was unsustainable in law, she had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the State to release her provisional pension along with the arrears. She then approached the High Court under Article 227 seeking a direction to disburse her pension, arrears and all other terminal benefits.

The Court issued the directions invoking Article 226 saying that constitutional courts have power to invoke Article 226 when there is manifest arbitrariness and service rules are taken as a shield by the Government.

“From the facts that loom large in the case, we absolutely find that it is not worth a contest for the State to deny Dr. Ciza Thomas her pension and all other benefits. On the face of the records of the Court, if the constitutional court is able to form an opinion that the State is wielding its power and authority to oppress and harass a government servant, the Court shall not refrain from using its power under Article 226 of the Constitution even though the challenge is made under Article 227 of the Constitution.”

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates George Poonthottam (Sr.), Nisha George, A. L. Navaneeth Krishnan, Kavya Varma M. M., Silpa Sreekumar

Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. A. J. Varghese (Sr. GP)

Case No: OP (KAT) 186 of 2025

Case Title: Dr. Ciza Thomas v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 303