Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 21 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: appellant – State of Kerala & Anr.; respondents – Beena Chandran & Ors., teaching staff of Doctor Padiyar Memorial Homeopathic Medical College, Ernakulam.
  • Nature of proceedings: Special Leave Petitions (Civil) No(s). 30451‑30454 of 2019 filed against the High Court judgment dated 18‑02‑2019 in WA Nos. 1536/2018, 132/2019, 1575/2018, 2039/2018.
  • Background: The respondents were originally appointed before the Direct Payment System. After its introduction, the Kerala Government created 20 promotional posts via G.O. dated 26‑02‑2011, abolishing 23 existing tutor posts, to align with Central Council of Homeopathic (CCH) norms prescribing 43 teaching posts. A subsequent G.O. dated 14‑08‑2012 modified the sanctioned strength to 43 posts (13 Professors, 15 Readers, 15 Lecturers), leaving 4 excess staff as supernumerary.
  • Dispute: Respondents sought that their appointment/promotional dates be deemed effective from 26‑02‑2011 rather than 14‑08‑2012, claiming salary arrears. They filed writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 25569/2016, 30533/2016, 1913/2017, 31564/2017) in the Kerala High Court. The Single Judge (order dated 23‑03‑2018) held that the 14‑08‑2012 G.O. merely limited posts to 43 and that appointments to all 43 posts were effective from 26‑02‑2011. The Division Bench (order dated 18‑02‑2019) affirmed this view, stating the 14‑08‑2012 order was rectificatory.
  • Counsel: For the State – Sr. Adv. Jaideep Gupta; for respondents – Sr. Adv. V. Chidambaresh, Sr. Adv. Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, Sr. Adv. Venkita Subramoniam T.R., among others.
  • Key observations by the Court:
  • All posts created under both G.O.s were promotional; duties were identical, no material difference.
  • Eight employees covered by the 14‑08‑2012 G.O. had received differential pay for the period 26‑02‑2011 to 14‑08‑2012 to avoid contempt proceedings.
  • Granting salary entitlement only to those appointed under the 26‑02‑2011 G.O. would violate Article 14 of the Constitution as discriminatory.
  • The Court reiterated the High Court’s reasoning that respondents are similarly placed as those promoted under the 26‑02‑2011 order and are entitled to salary from that date.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Kerala’s appeals, leaving the High Court’s order intact that the respondents’ appointments are effective from 26‑Feb‑2011.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • All pending applications were consigned to the records and stand disposed.

Topics: Judicial Decision, Government Employment, Salary Entitlement