Rule 120 permits pension arrears beyond three years with special Government sanction.

The employee retired as a Nursing Assistant on 30 April 2007 but applied for pension only in 2017.

Pension was authorised from 1 December 2017; his request for arrears from 1 May 2007 to 30 November 2017 was rejected by the Government for want of sufficient medical evidence explaining the delay.

He challenged that rejection before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, relying on medical records, the Head of Office’s failure to issue the notice contemplated by the Kerala Service Rules (KSR), and the Government’s grant of arrears to a similarly situated employee.

After his death, his children continued the proceedings.

The Tribunal set aside the rejection and directed payment of the arrears; the State challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether Rule 120 of Part III KSR barred payment of pension arrears for a period exceeding three years where the pension application was submitted late.

Whether the Tribunal’s direction to pay arrears warranted interference under the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

Rule 110 of Part III KSR requires a Government employee to submit a pension application in advance of retirement, while Rule 115(a) requires the Head of Office to notify a non-gazetted employee to furnish that application and relevant documents.

Under Rule 120, a pension granted more than three years after retirement requires special Government orders for retrospective effect; absent such orders, it takes effect from the date of sanction. The rule is not an absolute bar to retrospective pension.

Rule 135 concerns pension already sanctioned but left undrawn for more than three years, and does not govern delay in applying for pension.

Under Article 227, the High Court does not sit in appeal over a tribunal’s decision and may interfere only in cases of manifest error, perversity, jurisdictional excess, or serious failure of justice.

The Court found that the Head of Office had not issued the notice required by Rule 115(a), although the employee also had a duty under Rule 110 to apply for pension.

The Government’s rejection did not adequately consider the medical records submitted to explain the delay, and its distinction between the employee’s case and the comparator’s case was not sufficiently explained.

Since Rule 120 permits retrospective pension by special Government order and Rules 135 and the cited circular concerned non-drawal of pension already sanctioned, neither created an absolute bar to the claim.

The Tribunal’s order disclosed no illegality or impropriety warranting supervisory interference.

The original petition was dismissed, leaving in place the direction to pay the heirs the arrears of pension for the period from 1 May 2007 to 1 December 2017.