Facts
The petitioner had filed O.A. No. 516 of 2022 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking interest on delayed payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity and commutation amounts.
Source reference: para. 1; para. 3The Tribunal dismissed the application on merits on 29 May 2025, although neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present when it was heard.
Source reference: para. 1; para. 3The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the Tribunal should not have decided the matter on merits in his absence.
Source reference: para. 4; para. 5Issues
1. Whether the petitioner could challenge under Article 227 an order by which the Tribunal decided his application on merits in his absence, or whether the appropriate remedy was review before the Tribunal.
Source reference: para. 5; para. 82. Whether the Tribunal may entertain a review application filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed by Rule 21 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010, if sufficient cause is shown.
Source reference: para. 9Law Applied
Rule 15(1) of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010 gives the Tribunal discretion, when an applicant is absent at the hearing, either to dismiss the application for default or to hear and decide it on merits. Under the proviso to Rule 15(2), a matter decided on merits cannot be reopened except by way of review.
Source reference: para. 6Rule 21 prescribes a 30-day period for filing a review application. The Court also relied on Haris K.M. and others v. Jahfar K. and others, 2020 (5) KHC 123, holding that the Tribunal may entertain a review beyond that period if proper cause is shown.
Source reference: para. 9Reasoning
The Tribunal had exercised its discretion under Rule 15(1) to decide the application on merits rather than dismiss it for default.
Source reference: para. 6In those circumstances, the Rules made review—not an Article 227 challenge—the route for seeking to reopen the decision.
Source reference: para. 6; para. 8The Court therefore did not consider the underlying claim for interest and left the petitioner free to seek review, including out of time if proper cause could be shown.
Source reference: para. 6; para. 9Holding
The Court dismissed the original petition as not maintainable, without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to seek review of the Tribunal’s order under the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010.
Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 19851
Original Court PDF
SURESH BABU.RvsSTATE OF KERALA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
