Sri. Sangana Basappa vs Sri A. Raghavendra, State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue (Registration and Stamps) and C.J. Prabhakar

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (KAT) dated 17.9.2013 in Application No. 5679/2013 is called in question in this writ petition. The petitioner, who was working as First Division Assistant (FDA) was appointed as Sub Registrar under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (for short ''the Rules''). Petitioner being FDA was appointed to officiate in the post of Sub Registrar to be In-charge of current duties of Sub Registrar''s post on 30.11.2007. The petitioner continued to execute his duties as Sub Registrar till this day. In other words, he has been continuously working as Sub Registrar on in-charge basis under Rule 32 of the Rules, in one place or the other, by virtue of transfer orders made subsequently. While he was holding the post of Sub Registrar, at Jigani on Incharge basis under Rule 32 of the Rules, he is posted to work as Senior Sub-Registrar in the office of Basavanagudi, Bangalore. By the very order, the respondent No. 1 herein, who was working as Senior Sub Registrar at Basavanagudi is transferred to Chikkanayakanahali. The 1st respondent herein approached KAT in Application No. 5679/2013 seeking to set aside the order of transfer dated 31.8.2013 by which the petitioner is transferred to his place at Basavanagudi and the 1st respondent being transferred to Chikkanayakanahali. The Tribunal has set aside the order of the Transfer dated 31.8.2013 on the ground that the petitioner cannot hold the post of Senior Sub Registrar.

Sri S.V. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working as Sub Registrar, though under Rule 32 of the Rules, since 30.11.2007 till this day; the petitioner has carried out all the functions and duties attached to the post of Sub-Registrar for the last six years to the satisfaction of the Department; though he is placed on In-charge basis under Rule 32 of the Rules, he has been working as full fledged Sub-Registrar since November 2007 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the lapse, if any, on the part of the Government in posting the petitioner to the post of Senior Sub Registrar. In other words, petitioner''s counsel submits that petitioner should be regarded as a full fledged Sub Registrar for all practical purposes and therefore, there is nothing wrong in posting him to occupy the post of Senior Sub Registrar under Rule 32 of the Rules once again. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, in support of his contention.

Heard Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri P.B. Bajentri, learned AGA appearing for R2 and Sri C.J. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for R3.

The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Petitioner is admittedly not promoted to the post of Sub Registrar as on this day. His cadre is of FDA. However, he is appointed as Sub Registrar on In-charge basis under Rule 32 of the Rules. In other words, he merely officiates in the post of Sub Registrar. At this stage, it is relevant to note the provisions of Rule 32 of the Rules. [Relevant portion Note. 1] which reads as under:-

Rule 32: Instead of appointing a Government servant to officiate, it is also permissible to appoint him to be in charge of the current duties of a vacant post. In such a case a "charge allowance" (additional pay) is payable as specified in Rule 68. [Note 1] - A Government servant can be appointed under this Rule to be in-charge of the current duties of a vacant post only if he is eligible to be promoted to officiate in that post according to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules applicable to that post or if he is holding a post in an equivalent or higher grade.

Thus the question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to officiate in the post of Senior Sub Registrar to which he is now posted?

Admittedly, Basavanagudi Sub Registrar''s Office is manned by Senior Sub Registrar and not by a Sub Registrar. By virtue of the impugned order the petitioner is transferred to Basavanagudi. Though in the transfer order it is not stated that he is posted as Senior Sub Registrar, the fact remains that he would be discharging the duties of Senior Sub Registrar at Basavanagudi Sub Registrar''s Office. Admittedly the petitioner is not promoted as Sub Registrar. On the other hand, his cadre is FDA and he is merely officiating under Rule 32 of the Rules. Since he is merely officiating under Rule 32, he cannot be allowed to further officiate in the next higher post. Since the petitioner is of FDA cadre, he may be permitted to officiate only as Sub Registrar, if he is entitled to promotion to the said post. In the matter on hand, the petitioner was appointed on In-charge basis as Sub Registrar is in accordance with law, but he is not entitled to be promoted as Senior Sub Registrar as of now, if it is so, he cannot be posted as Senior Sub Registrar by virtue of the transfer order.

In view of the same, at the cost of the repetition, we may mention that the tag of Rule 32 still continues with the petitioner, inasmuch as he is not promoted as Sub Registrar as on this day on regular basis. Hence we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. Petition fails and the same stands dismissed. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the Advocates that by the subsequent transfer order, 3rd respondent is posted to Basavanagudi Senior Sub Registrar''s Office. Since the petition stands dismissed, consequences will follow.