D. Sujaya Pushpa vs The Principal District and Sessions Judge and Others

P.B. Bajanthri, J.—The petitioner took voluntary retirement from the post of Senior Typist when she was working in the office of the Civil Judge(Jr.Dn) and JMFC, K.R. Pet, Mandya District, on 31.03.2010.

While the petitioner was working as Senior Typist in the Court of Civil Judge(Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Pandavapura, during the year 2005-06 certain adverse remarks were made in her service records and it was communicated. Aggrieved by the adverse remarks made for the year 2005-06 she made a representation as provided under the Karnataka Civil Services(Performance Reports) Rules, 2000 and it is seen that adverse remarks for the year 2005-06 has been confirmed by the competent authority and it has attained finality.

The petitioner was not allowed stagnation increments which were due to her as on 1.3.2006, 1.3.2007, 1.3.2008, 1.3.2009 and 1.3.2010 respectively. In this regard, she had submitted representation to release five stagnation increments which had been withheld. After due consideration of the petitioner''s representation, the first respondent issued a communication stating that the petitioner is not entitled for the first four stagnation increments in view of the adverse remarks for the year 2005-06. Insofar as fifth stagnation increment was concerned, it is stated that she was not entitled as she had applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.3.2010. Accordingly, her grievance relating to grant of five stagnation increments has been rejected vide Annexure-"D" dated 27.1.2010. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid communication presented the above writ petition.

The petitioner contended that the impugned communication dated 27.1.2010 (Annexure-"D") is devoid of merit, wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the KCS (Confidential Reports) Rules, 1985 and KCS(CC and A) Rules, 1957. The petitioner further relied on Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of KCS (Confidential Reports) Rules, 1985 and contended that adverse remarks for the year 2005-2006 has attained finality consequently, she is entitled for stagnation increments which are due to her. It was further contended that the impugned communication is without any basis, which has no rationale behind such decision of denying four increments for one adverse entry in confidential reports. The petitioner also contended that denial of fifth stagnation increment is incorrect since she had taken voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.3.2010. In this regard on 23.2.2010 vide Annexure-E she had been permitted to retire voluntarily w.e.f. 31.3.2010. That apart, it is contended that denial of five stagnation increments virtually amounts to imposing major penalty on the petitioner. In this regard not even a show-cause notice or enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner.

The respondents resisting the petition have filed detailed statement of objections denying the contentions of the petitioner. In the reply statement it is stated that the petitioner had adverse remarks for the year 2005-06. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for stagnation increments for the first four years and insofar as fifth stagnation increment which was due in the year 2010 it is stated that the petitioner had taken voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 31.3.2010. Further, it is stated that denial of grant five stagnation increments is not under KCS(CC and A) Rules, 1957. Stagnation increment would be sanctioned under the Government Order No. FD 3 SRP 96 dated 18.3.1996. The said G.O. provides for grant of five stagnation increments. For the purpose of grant of stagnation increments two conditions have been stipulated in Para 3 of the G.O. which is extracted herein:--

"3. The grant of stagnation increment shall be subject to the following conditions:--

(i) The Government servant should have satisfactory record of service and he is otherwise eligible for normal increments in the time scale of pay but for reaching the maximum of the scale.

(ii) The satisfactory nature of service for the purpose of stagnation increments shall be determined in the same manner as suitability for promotion is determined. While determining the satisfactory nature of service, the fact that whether he has passed the departmental examinations, if any, prescribed for promotion to the next higher post, need not be taken into account."

Reading of the aforesaid criteria''s, it is crystal clear that stagnation increment shall be determined in the same manner as suitability for promotion is determined and other eligibility criteria. In other words, when the promotion opportunity/avenue is not available to a Government servant then the stagnation increment would be sanctioned. Having regard to the aforesaid provision, the petitioner is not entitled for stagnation increment for a period of five years, for the purpose of promotion to a cadre the competent authority would take ACRs for a period of five years. In view of the adverse ACRs of the petitioner for the year 2005-06 the petitioner is not entitled for the stagnation increment as sought in the writ petition. The learned Government advocate vehemently contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned communication dated 27.1.2010 vide Annexure-D.

The learned Government advocate pointed out that the adverse remarks for the year 2005-06 reported against petitioner is under the Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Report) Rules, 2000. The petitioner is relying on the earlier Rules namely, Karnataka Civil Services (Confidential Reports) Rules, 1985. Further, it was contended by the learned Government advocate that 1985 Rules have been replaced by the 1994 Rules called the Karnataka Civil Services(Performance Reports) Rules, 1994 and the said Rules, 1994 has been repealed by the Karnataka Civil Services(Performance Reports) Rules, 2000. Therefore, reliance placed on 1985 Rules is of no help to the petitioner. That apart he has contended that attaining finality insofar as adverse remarks by the competent authority indicates that adverse remarks have been upheld. Consequently, the petitioner should have questioned the confirmation of adverse remarks before the appropriate forum. The petitioner failed to question the confirmation of adverse remarks for the year 2005-06 and since it has attained finality and the same is hurdle in granting service benefits to the petitioner namely grant of stagnation increment for a period of five years i.e. for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

The petitioner''s contention is that she should have been given an opportunity before withholding of stagnation increments. Question of issuance of notice for withholding of stagnation increments do not arise for the simple reason that the petitioner do not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the G.O. dated 18.3.1996 which governs the grant of stagnation increments, in particular, condition stipulated in Para 3 of the said Government Order read with rules of recruitment governing the post higher than the Senior Typist post. Perused the factual aspects of the matter. The petitioner do not comply the required conditions for grant of stagnation increments as observed above.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned communication dated 27.1.2010 (Annexure-''D'') of the first respondent by which the claim of the petitioner relating to grant of five stagnation increments had been turned down.

Therefore, the above writ petition is rejected. No order as to costs.