Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 605 (KER)

State of Kerala v. Roopesh V. E.

2026-05-22

Anil K Narendran, Muralee Krishna S

body2026
JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. 1.The respondents in O.A.(EKM)No.1516 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P4 order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. 2. The respondent-applicant filed O.A.(EKM)No.1516 of 2022, invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Call for records pertaining to Annexures A5, passed by the 3 rd respondent and A6 and A8 orders passed by the 4 th respondent and set aside the same. (b) Declare that the applicant is entitled for the protection of pay and fixation of his salary and all other service benefits, considering his past service with the Municipal Common Service”. 3. Going by the averments in the original application, the respondent is presently working in the post of Senior Clerk, Performance Audit Unit II, Kunnamangalam, Office of District Joint Director, Kozhikode. He was appointed as a Lab Assistant in the Higher Secondary Education Department by the advice Letter No.DV(I) 2690/04 dated 17.01.2007. Later, the respondent was relieved from the said post and was directly recruited to the Municipal Common Service as LD Clerk at Kozhikode Municipal Corporation Office, for a monthly pay scale of Rs.5250-8390 by virtue of Annexure A2 advice dated 08.11.2011 and A2(a) Order dated 07.01.2012. Subsequently, he was relieved from the said post and was directly appointed as an LD clerk in the Panchayat department at Kodiyuthur Grama Panchayat as per Annexure A3 advice dated 19.06.2014 and A3(a) Order dated 21.07.2014. During this period, the salary he used to receive from the Municipal Common Service was protected. Thereafter, in the year 2020, the respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk and he joined the Vazhakkad Grama Panchayat in Malappuram District by order No.PAN/46/2019-E4(DP) dated 02.10.2020, passed by the Panchayat Director. Being so, his pay was also fixed as per Rule 28A Part 1 of the Kerala Service Rules by the Secretary of Vazhakkad Panchayat as per Annexure A4 proceedings dated 19.04.2021. Being so, his pay was also fixed as per Rule 28A Part 1 of the Kerala Service Rules by the Secretary of Vazhakkad Panchayat as per Annexure A4 proceedings dated 19.04.2021. But the 3 rd petitioner returned the respondent’s service book to the Secretary of Vazhakkad Grama Panchayat by Annexure A5 letter dated 06.11.2021 stating that the respondent is neither entitled for protection of his pay nor entitled for pay fixation as per Rule 28A of the Kerala Service Rules considering it as a higher post, since he has been directly recruited to the Municipal Common Service from the post of Lab Assistant and also directed to recover the salary that was given improperly. Soon, the 4 th petitioner passed Annexure A6 order dated 11.03.2022, fixing the respondent’s pay without reckoning his prior service. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent submitted Annexure A7 representation dated 20.06.2022 to the 1 st petitioner. During the pendency of Annexure A7 representation, the 4 th petitioner passed Annexure A8 order dated 03.07.2022, directing the Secretary of Kodiyathur Grama Panchayat to recover the excess salary paid consequent to the wrong fixation of pay to the respondent during the period 27.08.2014 to 20.10.2020. The respondent is entitled to all the benefits of fixation of pay as per Rule 28A of Kerala Service Rules . 4. The 3 rd petitioner filed a reply statement dated 16.11.2022, opposing the reliefs sought for in the original application and producing therewith Ext.R3(a) document. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of that reply statement read thus; “3. It is respectfully submitted that protection of salary that the applicant used to receive from the Municipal Common Service in the post of Lower Division Clerk in Panchayath Department fixing the pay as per Rule 28A of KST Part I was irregular and against the Service Rules and it was pointed out by the 3 rd respondent vide Letter No.KSA.MPM.7/877/2021 dated 06.11.2021. True copy of Letter No.KSA.MPM.7/877/2021 dated 06.11.2021 of the 3 rd respondent to the Secretary, Vazhakkad Grama Panchayath is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R3(a). It was corrected by the Panchayath Assistant Director, Kozhikode through his Letter No.ADP-KKD/1416/2021-C1 dated 03.07.2022 to the Secretary of Vazhakkad Grama Panchayath. 4. It is further submitted that the protection of pay envisaged in the Ruling under Rule 159 is applicable only in respect of appointments through By-transfer from the service under Local Funds to Government service. It was corrected by the Panchayath Assistant Director, Kozhikode through his Letter No.ADP-KKD/1416/2021-C1 dated 03.07.2022 to the Secretary of Vazhakkad Grama Panchayath. 4. It is further submitted that the protection of pay envisaged in the Ruling under Rule 159 is applicable only in respect of appointments through By-transfer from the service under Local Funds to Government service. The mode of appointment of the applicant in three departments were Direct Recruitment, not By-transfer, and treated as joining a first post under Government service and vice versa. Therefore no protection of pay is admissible under Rule 159 , KSR Part I to the applicant in fixation of pay in the post of Lower Division Clerk in Municipal Common Service and Panchayath Department. By view of the prevailing Rule 159 KSR Part I, By-transfer appointment only protected the previous service pay. Therefore the 3 rd respondent as the Statutory Audit Authority, after examining the Service Register of the applicant issued Ext.R3(a) to point out the defects occurred while fixing the pay of the applicant. 5. It is submitted that as a corrective measure, vide proceedings No.ADP-KKD/1415/2021-C1 dated 11.03.2022 of the 4 th respondent, fixed the applicant’s pay from 27.08.2014 without reckoning his prior service as per the Kerala Service Rules . The applicant has not appended the reply, if any, of the 1 st respondent after his representation to the Government. It implies that the action taken by the 3 rd and 4 th respondents were in accordance with the Service Rules. The direction of the 4 th respondent is a remedial one after the finding of irregular and incorrect fixation of pay of the applicant and it is necessary to him as a Controlling Officer. 6. It is respectfully submitted that after the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Nirish Kumar P.G vs. Kerala Public Service Commission & Others in O.P.(KAT) No.4373 of 2012 and the order of this Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A.No.2273 of 2016, a general order of the Government is necessary to consider all the direct recruits to the post in Municipal Common Service who have prior service in Government Service and vice verca for pay fixation by reckoning their prior service. Despite such an order, the Controlling Officers have to abide by the prevailing Service Rules. 7. Despite such an order, the Controlling Officers have to abide by the prevailing Service Rules. 7. It is submitted that the fixation of pay is governed by the Kerala Service Rules Part I and no protection of pay is admissible under Rule 159 , KSR Part I to the applicant in fixation of pay in the post of Direct Recruitment and therefore Annexures A5, A6 & A8 orders are as per Rules and legal. There is no General Order of the Government to consider all the direct recruits to the post in Municipal Common Service who have prior service in Government Service and vice versa for pay fixation reckoning their prior service. Annexure A9 Judgment adjudges the applicant of the said case only. The Government have not issued any General Order or Amended Rules to reckon the prior service in Government Departments or in Municipal Common Service for fixation of pay of the Direct Recruits to the Municipal Common Service and vice versa. As per prevailing Rules the applicant has no protection of pay admissible under Rule 159 , KSR Part I”. 5. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P4 order dated 16.11.2023, allowed the original application. Paragraphs 3 to 7 and the last paragraph of that order read thus: “3. It is pointed out by counsel for the applicant that, the issue now stands covered in favour of the applicant through Annexure A9 judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in O.P.(KAT)No.4373 of 2012, and also based on Annexure A10 order passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No.2273 of 2013. It is based on a Division Bench decision of the Hon’ble High Court reported in Santhosh Kumar v. Director of Panchayats ( 2013 (2) KLT 548 ) that this Tribunal had found that, service in Panchayat/Municipal Common Service are Government Service and that it would not make any difference whether an employee goes to the Municipal Common Service or to any other Department of the Government. It was declared that the applicants therein will be entitled for all consequential benefits. In Annexure A10 order of this Tribunal, an order issued by the Government as G.O.(MS)No.44/16/LSGD dated 01.03.2016 was also taken note of. It was declared that the applicants therein will be entitled for all consequential benefits. In Annexure A10 order of this Tribunal, an order issued by the Government as G.O.(MS)No.44/16/LSGD dated 01.03.2016 was also taken note of. The Government, after considering judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, had taken a decision that a person appointed in Municipal Common Service is entitled to get all the benefits of appointment including protection of salary and other benefits by reckoning his prior service in the Government Department. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that, in a recent judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022, dated 05.01.2023 the above position was reiterated referring to Santhosh Kumar’s case (cited supra). Therefore, it is pointed out that applicant is entitled to get his pay protection restored in accordance with Annexure A4, de hors the stand taken in Annexure A5 order issued by the 3 rd respondent. 5. In the reply statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the contention raised is that there is no general order issued by the Government in order to consider direct recruits to the Municipal Common Service, who has got prior service in the Government and vice versa, for pay fixation by reckoning their prior service. Despite such an order, the Controlling Officers have to abide by the prevailing Service Rules. In this respect it is stated that the prevailing Service Rules will govern and therefore the applicant is not entitled for the benefits of pay protection under Rule 28 A Part I KSR. 6. But, as pointed out earlier, the legal position remaining settled through various decisions of the Hon’ble High Court and this Tribunal would clearly determine the right of the applicant to get the benefits restored. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that, the matter is now pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)Nos.1857-1866 of 2021. However, it is conceded that, no stay has been granted against the operation of the impugned judgments. 7. Under the abovementioned circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that, as per the legal position remaining settled through binding precedents, the Original Application need to be allowed. Therefore, the above Original Application is hereby allowed to the extent of setting aside Annexure A5, A6 and A8. It is declared that the applicant will be entitled to the pay protection granted as per Annexure A4. Therefore, the above Original Application is hereby allowed to the extent of setting aside Annexure A5, A6 and A8. It is declared that the applicant will be entitled to the pay protection granted as per Annexure A4. The 4 th respondent shall revise the salary and other benefits due to the applicant on the basis of the above declaration and shall pay all the consequential benefits due to the applicant, without any further delay. Steps in this regard shall be initiated and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. 6. Being aggrieved, the State and its officials who are the respondents in the original application are now before this Court with this original petition. 7. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the issue involved in this case is already decided by this Court as per the judgment dated 05.02.2026 in O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024. The learned counsel further submitted that the Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the judgment in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022 is dismissed by the Apex Court as per the order dated 12.08.2025 in S.L.P.(C) No.21756 of 2023 and connected matters. The learned counsel produced for the perusal of this Court the Government Order dated 28.02.2026 bearing G.O.(MS) No. 64/2026 /LSGD, whereby pay protection is granted to the employees in the municipal common service, reckoning their past government service. 9. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 10. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd [ (2001) 8 SCC 97 ] , the Apex Court held thus; "The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. 10. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd [ (2001) 8 SCC 97 ] , the Apex Court held thus; "The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the fact of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to." 11. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [ (2010) 8 SCC 329 ] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 12. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 12. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [ (2010) 9 SCC 385 ] , while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 13. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [ (2015) 12 SCC 39 ] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 14. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law. 15. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 16. From the perusal of the judgment of this Court dated 05.02.2026 in O.P.(KAT)No.145 of 2024, we notice that the issue decided in that case is the same issue involved in the present case also. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of the said judgment read thus: “15. While coming to the arguments addressed at the Bar, in Mohanan [ 2013 (3) KLT 970 ] , a Division Bench of this Court considered the matters related to persons who, while working as police constables, accepted appointments by direct recruitment either as Village Extension Officer Grade- II or Lower Division Clerks, following PSC advice in that regard. Regarding the extension of benefits of the service rendered by them as Police Constables, which was clarified as not available by the Government, this Court held thus; “3. Not only that, as can be seen from Ext. Regarding the extension of benefits of the service rendered by them as Police Constables, which was clarified as not available by the Government, this Court held thus; “3. Not only that, as can be seen from Ext. P5, produced along with the original application before the Tribunal, even according to the Government, reckoning of total service rendered in all the posts can be only by excluding the period of actual break in service. Service jurisprudence does not envisage a government servant, while in office, re-entering government service by direct recruitment. Therefore, a Police Constable, on being selected for direct recruitment as Village Extension Officer or Lower Division Clerk, as the case may be, can re-enter the Government of Kerala only after demitting the office as Police Constable. By that exercise, there will be a total break down of the jural relationship of master and servant, as between the State Government and the officer concerned. That break in service is sufficient to break any continuity that could be claimed for any grade promotion benefits. This reasoning supports the decision in WA No.2939 of 2001 referred to above, and seals the issue.” However, while going through Annexure A10 judgment passed by this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022, we notice that the facts of O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022 are almost similar to those of the instant case. 16. In Santhosh Kumar [ 2013 (2) KLT 548 ] , which is relied upon by this Court in Annexure A10 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court held thus; “6. We, therefore, proceed to examine the manner in which the Panchayats could employ servants or staff. Adverting to Part IX of the Constitution, which deals with the Panchayats, it can be seen that the composition of Panchayats, the powers and functions of Grama Sabha and such other matters are required to be covered by legislation to be made by the respective State Legislatures. Looking into the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , for short, "KPR Act", made after the aforenoted constitutional amendment; what surges with abundant relevance to the issue in hand is Chapter XVI, which deals with officers and employees of Panchayats. Sub- section (1) of S.179 of that Act provides for appointment of a Secretary for a Panchayat, who shall be a Government servant. Sub- section (1) of S.179 of that Act provides for appointment of a Secretary for a Panchayat, who shall be a Government servant. Different aspects touching the Secretary of the Panchayat are cohesively provided in S.179 so that the Panchayat concerned would also have a word in the matter to the extent statutorily provided. Now, going to S.180, it can be seen that the said statutory provision makes it explicitly clear that all persons serving the Panchayat would be Government servants. We say so because, sub-section (1) of S.180 provides that officers and employees of the Panchayat, other than contingent employees, would be Government servants. Sub- section (4) of S.180 provides that the Government shall, by rules made under the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 , - for short, 'KPS Act', regulate the classification, methods of recruitment, conditions of service, pay and allowances and discipline and conduct of officers and employees. Such rules shall be subject to the provisions of the KPR Act. Those rules may provide for the constitution of any class of officers or servants of panchayats into a separate service either for the whole State or for each district. This provision enjoins the making and classification of service to provide for officers and servants for the different panchayats. It also categorically shows that the rules are to be made under the KPS Act. Necessarily, therefore, it imports into the spectrum, Art.309 and Art.311 of the Constitution. This being the present statutory scenario in the backdrop of the constitutional position available after the 73rd amendment, there is no doubt that servants in the Panchayat / Municipal Common Service are Government servants and the position laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Balakrishnan Nair (supra) will continue to hold the field. Obviously, this does not relate to the contingent servants because the contingent servants are not treated as Government servants. We, therefore, completely agree with the views expressed in the reference order by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice P. N. Ravindran. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the reference made by the learned Single Judge, to the extent it relates to the Panchayat and Municipal employees, to whichever category they belong, other than the contingent employees, is answered in the affirmative stating that matters relating to their conditions of service etc. are governed by S.15(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 . 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the reference made by the learned Single Judge, to the extent it relates to the Panchayat and Municipal employees, to whichever category they belong, other than the contingent employees, is answered in the affirmative stating that matters relating to their conditions of service etc. are governed by S.15(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 . 17. In Balakrishnan Nair v. Ram Mohan Nair [1998 (1) KLT 766] , which was referred to in Santhosh Kumar [ 2013 (2) KLT 548 ] , a Full Bench of this Court, while considering the true scope and content of Rule 8 of Part II of KS & SSR, held thus; “32. Now we shall examine Rule 8 to find out whether the term service will include services other than the services classified as State and Subordinate Service. The fourth proviso and Note 1 to Rule 8 throw light on this aspect. They are as follows: Provided also that this Rule shall not apply in the case of a member of a service whose absence from duty in such service is by reason of his appointment to another service not being Military Service, solely on his own application, unless such appointment is made in the exigencies of Public Service. Note 1: An appointment made in pursuance of applications invited, sponsored or recommended by Government or other competent authority shall be deemed to be an appointment made in the exigencies of Public Service for the purpose of this rule. The mention of Military service in the proviso is an indication to show that the term service is not confined to State and Subordinate Service. Further, according to the proviso and Note 1, appointment made in the exigencies of Public Service on the application or recommendation of the Government or competent authority will be deemed to be absence from duty from the parent service. The term Public service has a wider concept than the term service mentioned in Clause 15 of Rule 2 KS & SSR. It cannot be denied that Municipal Common Service is not a Public Service. The Kerala Municipal Common Service is constituted in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 90 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 . Section 90 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act is as follows: 90. It cannot be denied that Municipal Common Service is not a Public Service. The Kerala Municipal Common Service is constituted in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 90 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 . Section 90 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act is as follows: 90. Constitution of a Common Municipal Service : - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 91 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (Act 14 of 1961) the Government may constitute the employees under the Municipal Councils and Corporations in the State into a common Municipal service for the State, subject to such rules as may be prescribed by the Government in this behalf. (2) The Government may make rules to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of officers and servants of Municipal Corporations. Rule 3 of the Kerala Municipal Common Service Rules states that on and effect from the first day of November 1967, the employees of the Municipal Councils and Corporations holding the posts specified by the Government, by order in this behalf, shall be constituted into a common service for the State. Under Clause (2) of Rule 3, the Government is given the power to arrange for the preparation of a combined gradation list of the persons holding the posts included in the common service. Rule 4 enables the Government or the Director or any other Officer authorised by the Government to transfer an employee holding any post included in the common service from one local authority to another. The pay and allowance are to be disbursed at the rates fixed by the Government. The recruitment committee for the purpose of recruitments to the posts included in the common service is to be constituted by the Government. Under Rule 8 recruitment is to be made in accordance with the provisions of the Common Service Rules and such other orders as the Government may from time to time issue. Rule 10 deals with appointing authority. The person competent to appoint any employee shall be notified by the Government. Qualifications for the different posts are to be prescribed by the Government. Under Rule 12, the Government may for special reasons and in the exigencies of service, appoint any person from the service of the Government to any of the posts under a local authority included in the common service on foreign service conditions. Qualifications for the different posts are to be prescribed by the Government. Under Rule 12, the Government may for special reasons and in the exigencies of service, appoint any person from the service of the Government to any of the posts under a local authority included in the common service on foreign service conditions. Rule 14 of the Rules makes the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules applicable in the case of employees of the common service. 33. Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether the Panchayat service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act is a civil service. Dealing with this question, the Court held as follows: the true test for determination of the question whether a person is holding a civil post or is a member of the civil service is the existence of a relationship of master and servant between the State and the person holding a post under it and that the existence of such relationship is dependent upon the right of the State to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages and remuneration. It is further held that the relationship of master and servant may be established by the presence of all or some of the factors referred to above in conjunction with other circumstances. The Court then considered the provisions of the Panchayats Act and held as follows: It may be noted that the Panchayat service contemplated under Section 203 of the Panchayat Act is a single service for the whole State and it is not a collection of distinct and separate services of such individual panchayat. That panchayat service is a service under the State is again emphasised by Section 206 which authorises the State Government to pool together four classes of persons mentioned therein who originally belonged to four different sources and to allocate them to the Panchayat Service and one class of such persons are those who belong to the State Service. Unless the Panchayat Service is held to be a State Service, inclusion of officers and servants in the State Service will be unconstitutional. Unless the Panchayat Service is held to be a State Service, inclusion of officers and servants in the State Service will be unconstitutional. It was further observed thus: State Public Services may be constituted or established either by a law made by the State Legislature or by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or even by an executive order made by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. The recruitment and conditions of service of the officers and servants of the State Government may also be regulated by statute, rules or executive orders. The administration of a service under a State involves broadly the following functions: (i) the organization of the civil service and the termination of the remuneration, conditions of service, expenses and allowances of persons serving in it; (ii) the manner of admitting persons to civil service; (iii) exercise of disciplinary control over members of the service and power of transfer, suspend, remove or dismiss them in the public interest as and when occasion to do so arises. In the instant case, the Panchayat Service is constituted by the Panchayats Act and the State Government is empowered to make orders and rules regarding its organisation and management. It is true that in Section 203 of the Panchayats Act, it is stated that the Panchayat Service shall be distinct from the State Service. Having regard to the broad feature of the Panchayat Service, we are of the view that the said declaration appears to have been made only to distinguish the Panchayat Service from other services of the State attached to the several departments which are under the direct control of the State Government. If the members of the Panchayat Service are not to be the members of a service under the State Government but are to be the officers and servants of the Panchayat unit to which they are allotted then sub-sections (2), (2-A) and 4(a) of Section 203 of the Panchayats Act would to some extent become unworkable as every time there is a transfer of an officer borne on the Panchayat Service there would be a change of master. On an examination of the Kerala Municipal Common Service Rules, we are of the view on the basis of the above Supreme Court decision that the Municipal Common Service is also a public service. On an examination of the Kerala Municipal Common Service Rules, we are of the view on the basis of the above Supreme Court decision that the Municipal Common Service is also a public service. Thus, the fourth respondent will be allowed to join the Collectorate, Pathanamthitta as per Ext. R4(e) order. He will be entitled to all the benefits which would have accrued to him had he joined the Collectorate immediately Ext. R4(e) order.” [Underline supplied] 18. From the materials placed on record, we notice that though the Annexure A10 judgment in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022 was challenged by the State before the Apex Court by filing SLP(C)No.21756 of 2023, the same was dismissed as per Ext.R1(a) order dated 12.08.2025. In such circumstances, it is only to be held that the findings in the Annexure A10 judgment attained finality. Therefore, the claim of the 1 st respondent to reckon his Government Service to Municipal Common service is squarely covered in Annexure A10 judgment in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022, which has attained finality” 17. As noted above, though the petitioners contend that the Government has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court against the judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.219 of 2022, the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Apex Court. Moreover, at present, the Government has issued an order dated 28.02.2026 bearing G.O.(MS) No. 64/2026 /LSGD, granting pay protection to the employees in Municipal Common Service, reckoning their previous Government service. In such circumstances, we find no ground to hold the impugned order of the Tribunal as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.