1. The respondents in O.A.No.2108 of 2021 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (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.P3 order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Tribunal in that original application as well as Ext.P7 interim order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Tribunal in C.P. No.74 of 2023 filed in that original application.
2. The pleadings in O.A.No.2108 of 2021 filed by the respondent herein, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, in brief are as under;
The respondent is a differently abled person with a benchmark disability of 40%. He is approaching the Tribunal being highly aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the petitioners in considering him for promotion, extending the benefit of 4% reservation under ‘the disability quota’ with all consequential service benefits, as required to be granted to him in tune with the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of the Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 and the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The issue as to whether reservation could be provided to persons with disabilities in the matter of promotion also was affirmed by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka and others [2020 (1) KHC 609] as well. In the recent judgment in State of Kerala and others v. Leesamma Joseph [2021(4) KLT 191 (SC)], the Apex Court has categorically held that Persons with Disabilities are to be given reservation in promotions as well, with reference to the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength, which would include vacancies to be filled up by nomination as also by promotion. By the said judgment, the Supreme Court has made it clear that absence of provisions in the recruitment rules providing for reservation to persons with disabilities cannot be a ground to deny them such benefit. Moreover, observing that failure to identify the posts cannot be a ruse for the Government to defeat the right of PWD category for reservation promotion, the Supreme Court has directed the State of Kerala to implement the judgment and provide for reservation in promotion in all posts after identifying the said posts within a period of three months from 28.06.2021, the date on which the judgment in Leesamma Joseph's case was rendered. Apparently, the time frame stipulated by the Apex Court having been over, the State Government cannot again frustrate the claim of the respondent for reservation in promotion.
3. In the original application, the respondent-applicant sought the following reliefs;
“a) Declare that in view of the Apex Court judgments, the applicant is entitled for reservation in promotion under PWD Quota to the post of Senior clerk with effect from April 2015 and as Head Clerk and further as Junior Superintendent with effect from the dates when his claim originally arose under the quota earmarked for persons with disabilities and thus for arrears of salary and other attendant benefits in the said posts from the respective dates onwards .
b) Declare that the applicant cannot be refused the benefit of Promotion under the PWD quota Projecting the reason that the posts to which he has sought promotion under the PWD quota has not yet been identified for the Purpose of Sections 33 & 34 of the Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016.
c) Issue a direction to the respondents to promote the applicant to the posts of Senior clerk with effect from April 2015 and as Head Clerk and further as Junior Superintendent with effect from the dates when his claim originally arose under the quota earmarked for persons with disabilities, within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal, and also to disburse him all the actual benefits of promotion, including arrears of salary, that was due to him from the relevant dates on which such promotions were due.
d) Issue a direction to the respondents to consider Annexure 25 representation submitted by the applicant and pass favourable orders within a time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court”.
4. The 2nd petitioner filed Ext.P2 reply statement dated 10.06.2022 in the original application, opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Ext.P2(a) Government order dated 15.07.2022.
5. After considering the rival contentions and the materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P3 order, disposed of the original application, along with two other original applications in which a similar issue was involved. Paragraphs 2 to 5 and the last paragraph of that order read thus;
“2. lt is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that the Apex Court held in Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka and others [2020 (1) KHC 609] that the law laid down in Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Others v. Union of India and Others [(2016) 13 SCC 153] as clarified in National Federation of the Blind v. Sanjay Kothari [2015 (9) Scale 611] will bind the Union and the State Governments and that the reservation is applicable for promotions also. This position has been reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph [2021 (9) SCC 208]. It was held that legislative mandate is that equal opportunity should be provided for career progression including promotion and that it would be a negation of the legislative mandate if promotion is denied to the DA or if the reservation in their favour is confined to initial entry in service. In the above decision the Honourable Supreme Court directed the State Government to implement the directions in the earlier judgments and to provide reservation in all posts after identifying the posts within 3 months from the date of the judgment.
3. Learned counsel submits that even after the above judgment, the State Government had not taken any steps to implement the direction and contempt proceedings were initiated before the Supreme Court wherein stringent orders were issued. Ultimately, the Government has now issued G.O.(P) No.2022/SJD dated 15.07.2022 providing reservation in promotions to persons with disabilities in State services. A copy of the same has been produced by the learned Government Pleader along with a memo and the operative portion of the same reads as follows:
“9. Government after having examined the matter in detail are pleased to order as follows to provide reservation in promotion to employees who are Persons with Disabilities thereby complying with the directions in various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
i. Reservation in promotion shall be provided to employees who are Persons with Disabilities thereby complying with the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
ii. Persons with Disabilities shall be provided reservation in promotion in those posts where appointment to the post is not only by direct recruitment but also by promotion (from feeder category).
iii. The Guidelines furnished by Director, Social Justice Department for providing reservation in promotion on the basis of Office Memorandum issued by Central Government is approved.
(Guidelines for providing reservation in promotion to employees who are persons with disabilities in State service is attached as Annexure.)
iv. Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department shall issue specific directions too amend the special rules and roster system of various departments.
v. Director, Social Justice Department is directed to complete the functionality assessment, identify the posts suitable for Persons with Disabilities and place before the expert committee formed as per the order read as 3rd paper above.”
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the above Government Order, there can be no objection in conceding their claim. Some of the applicants submit that the posts to which they seek promotion are already identified and therefore promotions can be effected immediately. In cases where the claim is in relation to the posts which are not yet identified, the respondents concerned are bound to act in terms of the above Government Order dated 15.07.2022.
5. In such circumstances, the competent respondents in these Original Applications are directed to ensure due compliance of the Government Order dated 15.07.2022 and consider the claim of the applicants for promotion within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Original Applications are disposed of with the above directions”.
6. Alleging non-compliance of Ext.P3 order, the respondent filed the contempt petition bearing C.P.No.74 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023 before the Tribunal, which is marked as Ext.P4 in this original petition. In the contempt petition, along with a memorandum, the learned Government Pleader produced Ext.P5 order dated 07.06.2023 purportedly issued in compliance with the direction in Ext.P3 order. Thereafter the additional 6th respondent in the original application filed Ext.P6 affidavit dated 24.07.2024 in the contempt petition, producing therewith Annexure CP6(a), which is a copy of Ext.P5 order dated 07.06.2023 and Annexure CP6(b) documents. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed Ext.P7 interim order dated 29.08.2024 in the contempt petition which reads thus;
“Though the Additional Respondent 6 has filed an affidavit stating that the post of Senior Clerk is not identified as suitable for differently abled persons, the respondents will not have a case that the post of Clerk in the feeder category is not identified.
Therefore the respondents shall comply with the order and produce orders by the first week of October 2024”.
7. Being aggrieved, the State and its officials are now before this Court with this original petition challenging Exts.P3 and P7 orders of the Tribunal.
8. The respondent-applicant filed a counter affidavit dated 12.11.2024 in the original petition, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) documents.
9. On 13.11.2024, when this original petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the respondent agreed that he would not precipitate the contempt proceeding till the next posting date. The said interim order was extended from time to time.
10. On 27.11.2024, when this original petition was taken up for consideration, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:
“Learned senior Government Pleader seeks further time to file an affidavit in the light of the application/respondent was appointed prior to 2016. The affidavit shall contain the back log vacancies of the PWD candidates in promotional cadre and in the higher categories between 1995 - 2016 as well as till the date it separate. Post on 10.12.2024”.
11. Along with IA No.1 of 2025, the petitioners produced Exts.P10 and P11 documents. To that interlocutory application, the respondent filed an objection dated 01.06.2025, producing therewith Exts R1(c) and R1(d) documents.
12. On 05.06.2026 when this original petition was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out the dismissal of S.L.P.(C) Diary No.18606 of 2026 by the order dated 25.05.2026 of the Apex Court, which was one filed challenging the judgment of this Court dated 06.10.2025 in W.A.No.173 of 2025 and connected cases, which is reported as Shoyab. K.A v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC Online 2143] and the order dated 05.02.2026 in R.P.No.1494 of 2025 and connected cases.
13. Heard the learned Government pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent.
14. The learned Government pleader submitted that the direction in Ext.P7 interim order passed by the Tribunal in the contempt petition is outside the purview of the contempt jurisdiction. In fact, the Government had complied with the directions in Ext.P3 order by Ext.P5 order dated 07.06.2023, and if the respondent is aggrieved by the said order, the remedy of the respondent is to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.
15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Ext.P5 order issued by the Government is not in compliance with the directions in Ext.P3 order. Moreover, Ext.P9 Government order dated 26.10.2023 relied by the petitioners in this original petition was set aside by this Court in Shoyab. K.A [2025 KHC Online 2143], which was confirmed by the Apex Court in the order dated 25.05.2026 in S.L.P.(C) Diary No.18606 of 2026.
16. We have carefully perused the pleadings and materials on record and appreciated the arguments addressed at the Bar. From the memorandum of the original petition, we notice that the stand of the petitioners is that the orders and directions issued by the Tribunal in Ext.P3 order dated 02.08.2022 in O.A.No.2108 of 2021 was complied, by the issuance of Ext.P5 order dated 07.06.2023 and there was no further need to proceed with the contempt of court case. Though the original petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order dated 02.08.2022 also, from the pleadings in the original petition and from the submissions made across the Bar it can be seen that the actual grievance of the petitioners is against Ext.P7 interim order of the Tribunal passed in the contempt petition. Moreover, Ext.P9 Government order 26.10.2023 relied by the petitioners in the original petition was already set aside by this Court as per the judgment in Shoyab. K.A [2025 KHC Online 2143], which attained finality by the dismissal of S.L.P.(C) Diary No.18606 of 2026. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with Ext.P3 impugned order of the Tribunal dated 02.08.2022 in O.A.No.2108 of 2021.
17. At the same time, while coming to Ext.P7 order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Tribunal, it can be seen that the said order is outside the purview of the contempt jurisdiction. While considering a petition alleging contempt of Court, no positive directions as that of the present one passed by the Tribunal can be issued. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that Ext.P7 order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
In the result, this original petition is disposed of confirming Ext.P3 order dated 02.08.2022 in O.A.No.2108 of 2021 and setting aside Ext.P7 order dated 29.08.2024 in C.P.No.74 of 2023 passed by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the respondent is at liberty to proceed with C.P.No.74 of 2023 pending on the file of the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders therein in accordance with law.
