A non-retrospective circular cannot impose Cabinet-approval requirements on prior reappointments.

The petitioner, a retired Deputy Transport Commissioner, retired from the Motor Vehicles Department on 31 October 2018. Pursuant to proceedings dated 23 March 2020, he was re-appointed as Joint Director of the Institute of Driver Training & Research (IDTR) and assumed charge on 1 June 2020.

The appointment was subsequently approved and ratified by the IDTR Governing Body at its meeting held on 4 November 2020, subject to the applicable Government orders and financial conditions.

The petitioner served as Joint Director from 1 June 2020 until 31 March 2022, but was not paid salary during that period.

The respondents relied on Finance Department Circular No. 64/2020/Fin. dated 30 October 2020, which required proposals for re-appointment to be placed before and approved by the Cabinet.

Since the petitioner’s appointment had not received Cabinet approval, his salary was withheld.

During the proceedings, the fourth respondent issued Ext. P33 dated 3 March 2026, offering payment of ₹40,000 per month for 11 months, while stating that no contractual wages could be paid because no formal contract had been executed.

The petitioner claimed salary under G.O.(P) No. 159/2016/Fin. dated 19 October 2016, relying on the re-employment pay formula under Rule 100 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR).

Whether Finance Department Circular No. 64/2020/Fin. dated 30 October 2020 applied to the petitioner’s re-appointment made pursuant to the order dated 23 March 2020 and thereby required Cabinet approval as a condition for payment of salary

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his salary claim considered under G.O.(P) No. 159/2016/Fin. dated 19 October 2016 and Rule 100 of Part III KSR for the period during which he served as Joint Director

The Court applied the principle that an administrative circular operates prospectively unless retrospective effect is expressly or validly conferred, and that a later circular cannot ordinarily govern an appointment already made before its issuance.

It relied on G.O.(P) No. 159/2016/Fin. dated 19 October 2016, which referred to Rule 100 of Part III KSR and prescribed that the re-employment pay of a person re-employed after retirement from a post carrying a pay scale would be the pay drawn at retirement minus the basic pension.

The Court further applied the principle that the competent authority must duly consider and adjudicate an employee’s salary entitlement under the governing rules and Government orders, rather than reject the claim solely on the basis of an inapplicable administrative circular.

The petitioner’s appointment was made on 23 March 2020 and he joined on 1 June 2020, whereas Circular No. 64/2020/Fin. was issued only on 30 October 2020.

Since the circular contained no express retrospective provision, and a circular of that nature could not be retrospectively applied, the requirement of Cabinet approval introduced by it did not govern the petitioner’s earlier re-appointment.

Although the respondents were correct that Cabinet approval had not been obtained, that omission could not defeat the petitioner’s salary claim on the basis of Ext. P4.

The Governing Body’s minutes expressly referred to G.O.(P) No. 159/2016/Fin., under which the petitioner claimed re-employment pay calculated by deducting his basic pension from the pay drawn at retirement.

However, the authorities had not examined the petitioner’s specific claim or the computation allegedly set out in Ext. P22, having proceeded on the assumption that the circular barred payment altogether.

Accordingly, the Court did not itself quantify the amount payable but directed the competent authorities to reconsider the claim in accordance with the Government Order and the Court’s findings.

Ext. P33 was consequently set aside.

Respondents 4 and 5 were directed to consider the petitioner’s claim contained in Ext. P22 dated 28 September 2022, with specific reference to G.O.(P) No. 159/2016/Fin. and the findings in the judgment, and to issue appropriate orders within four months.

The petitioner was also to be given an opportunity of hearing if any dispute arose regarding the quantification of the amount claimed.