The Supreme Court overturned the Kerala High Court’s judgments, restoring previous orders that granted benefits of seniority, probation, and promotion to appellants with benchmark disabilities. The Court found the State Government’s subsequent order, which sought to deny these benefits to those regularly appointed on supernumerary posts, to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court affirmed that once regular appointments were made, associated benefits could not be withdrawn.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellants are individuals with benchmark physical disabilities exceeding 40% who were temporarily engaged in various public institutions in Kerala under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, for periods not exceeding 179 days. In 2013, the State Government of Kerala issued a Government Order (G.O.) to regularize the services of 2,677 such physically disabled persons against supernumerary posts, who had been temporarily engaged between August 16, 1999, and December 31, 2003. This G.O. stipulated that these supernumerary posts would be abolished upon the retirement of the incumbents. Pursuant to this G.O., the appellants were reappointed on a regular basis in their respective departments.However, a subsequent G.O. issued on February 3, 2016, declared that such reappointed persons would not be eligible for probation declaration, inclusion in the combined seniority list, or consideration for promotion. Aggrieved by these restrictions, the appellants challenged the 2016 G.O.. In several instances, a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court or the Kerala Administrative Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the appellants, directing the grant of seniority, probation, and promotion benefits. However, Division Benches of the Kerala High Court subsequently reversed these decisions, upholding the 2016 G.O. on the grounds that the appointments to supernumerary posts were a policy concession and did not confer a right to promotion or seniority. This led the appellants to approach the Supreme Court
Procedural History:
The appellants, feeling aggrieved by the restrictions imposed by the G.O. dated February 3, 2016, which denied them eligibility for probation declaration, inclusion in seniority lists, or promotion, adopted various remedies. In Civil Appeal No. 14915 of 2024, the appellants challenged the G.O. before the Kerala High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed their writ petition on September 13, 2017, directing the respondents to grant benefits of seniority, probation, and promotion, holding the G.O. to be contrary to equality principles. However, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this judgment, upholding the G.O..Similarly, in Civil Appeal Nos. 14916-14917 of 2024, the appellant’s request for probation declaration and seniority inclusion was declined, prompting her to file an Original Application before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The tribunal allowed her claim on July 12, 2019, following the Single Judge’s decision. This order was also reversed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on February 1, 2021, which held that the appointment on a supernumerary post was a policy concession. Civil Appeal No. 14918 of 2024 followed a similar trajectory, with the tribunal allowing the appellant’s application, which was then reversed by the Division Bench. In Civil Appeal No. 14919 of 2024, the appellant’s promotion and regularization were cancelled, leading to an Original Application before the tribunal, which ruled in his favor, finding the restrictions discriminatory. This order was subsequently set aside by a co-ordinate Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on March 5, 2021, relying on the February 1, 2021 judgment. The current Civil Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court challenging these Division Bench judgments
READ ALSO :No Arrears for RBI Pension Opt-Ins: Supreme Court Reinforces Policy Decisions on Pension Benefits
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the initial Government Order (G.O.) dated May 18, 2013, intended to grant “regular appointment” to persons with disabilities who were working temporarily through employment exchanges. This G.O. authorized the creation of supernumerary posts for their re-appointment and explicitly stated that detailed guidelines for their “regular appointment” would be issued later. The Court noted that the re-appointment orders for some appellants explicitly stated that their appointments were on probation for a period of one year, indicating regular employment on a regular basis.The Court further observed that the subsequent G.O. dated February 3, 2016, specifically made applicable to beneficiaries of the May 18, 2013 G.O., sought to withdraw benefits previously conferred, by declaring them ineligible for seniority and completion of probation as other regular employees. The Court emphasized that many appellants had changed their position based on the earlier G.O., expecting to secure benefits. Therefore, the Court concluded that the February 3, 2016 G.O. was discriminatory and irrational, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it attempted to withdraw what was specifically conferred by the earlier G.O.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, in its final decision, set aside the impugned judgments delivered by the Division Benches of the Kerala High Court. Consequently, the Court restored the judgments of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court and the judgments of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which had previously been overturned by the Division Benches. This means that the original directives granting benefits such as seniority, declaration of probation, and promotion to the appellants were reinstated. The Court concluded that the Government Order dated February 3, 2016, which sought to impose restrictions on the appellants’ service benefits, was discriminatory and irrational, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appeals were accordingly allowed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Maya P.C. & Ors. versus The State of Kerala & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 773 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14915 OF 2024 Date of Judgement: May 23, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here