Sri Krishna vs State of Karnataka

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, dated 6.3.2013 passed in Application No. 1159/2008 in so far as it relates to refixation of pay of the petitioner herein by the Superintendent of Police, Hassan is concerned, is called in question in this writ petition. The records reveal that petitioner who was working as Police Constable was transferred from Madikeri to Hassan at his request on 9.11.1998. He completed totally 10 years of service as a Police Constable at Madikeri and Hassan. Thus, he was granted benefit of time-bound advancement as per Rule 3 of Karnataka Civil Services (Time-bound Advancement) Rules, 1983 (''Rules'' for short). Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police having felt that grant of time-bound advancement on 14.5.2004 in favour of the petitioner was under the mistaken notion that the petitioner had completed 10 years of service in Hassan District, refixed pay of the petitioner by the order dated 24.1.2008. The Superintendent of Police further directed for recovery of excess salary paid to the petitioner. The said order was called in question before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, in Application No. 1159/2008, which came to be allowed in part. The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Superintendent of Police in so far as it relates to recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner is concerned. However, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the Superintendent of Police relating to refixation of pay of the petitioner.

The State has not filed writ petition questioning the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in so far as it relates to setting aside the order of recovery made by the Superintendent of Police. However, the employee (petitioner herein) being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal relating to refixation of his pay, assailed the correctness of the order of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal while passing the impugned order has overlooked the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Uttam Vishnu Pawar, , in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. V.N. Bhat, and in the case of Dwijen Chandra Sarkar and Another Vs. Union of India and Another, , while coming to the conclusion. It is no doubt true that Rule 3(c) of the Rules stipulate that the time-bound advancement may be given to the employee who is qualified and eligible for promotion in accordance with the rules of recruitment applicable to him.

In the matter on hand, as aforementioned, the petitioner was transferred from Madikeri to Hassan on 21.4.1998 and consequently he was placed at the bottom of seniority list of Hassan District, since the transfer was at his request. Undisputedly, the petitioner being placed at the bottom of the seniority list of Hassan District, he is not entitled to promotion to the next higher cadre. However, his past service spent by him at Madikeri as a Police Constable cannot be ignored particularly having regard to the object with which the Rules are framed. There cannot be any dispute that the time-bound advancement is granted in order to avoid frustration in the mind of the employees who are not entitled to or granted promotion despite their long service.

In the aforementioned judgments, the Apex Court has ruled that even on voluntary transfer, employee only loses the seniority and not other benefits and cannot be deprived of his experience and eligibility for financial benefits. Promotion cannot be made on the basis of seniority as in the present case, however the petitioner cannot be denied being considered for time-bound advancement. The incumbent may not get benefit of seniority, but his experience of past service rendered will be counted for the purpose of other benefits like higher pay scale by virtue of time-bound advancement. Rule 3 of the Rules has to be read keeping in mind the aforementioned judgments of the Apex Court on the issue.

In view of the above, order 6.3.2013 passed in Application No. 1159/2008 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in so far as it relates to upholding the order of the Superintendent of Police relating to re-fixation of pay of the petitioner is concerned, stands quashed.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

It is made clear that time-bound advancement provided to the petitioner on 14.5.2004 continues.