AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—This petition coming on for preliminary hearing (B Group) is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent seeks time to file statement of objections. It is seen that the matter is of the year 2008 and as shall be presently pointed out, there is no objection that can be raised insofar as the case of the Petitioners are concerned.
The facts are as follows:
The Petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed in the erstwhile Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation as Training Co-Ordinators by direct recruitment on 26.5.1977 in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1100. Petitioner No. 3 was also appointed as Officer-in-charge of Procurement. It is stated that one Dr. H. Hanumanthappa had reported for duty after a lapse of seventy seven days. He was working as Veterinary Officer and the said post being a lower post, the seniority of the Petitioners could not have been disturbed. However, in the seniority list prepared as on 14.1.1934 in respect of category of Officers-in-charge/Training Co-Ordinators, the name of Dr. Hanumanthappa was shown at Serial No. 6 whereas the names of Petitioners 1 and 2 were shown at Serial Nos. 7 and 8, respectively. Even though the name of the Petitioner No. 3 was shown at Serial No. 5 there were other irregularities in finalizing the seniority list. Therefore, all the three Petitioners had filed detailed objections. The Respondent, did not consider the same and finalized the list. Therefore, it was the Petitioners'' grievance that their juniors were promoted ignoring seniority. The Petitioners therefore approached the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies by raising a dispute u/s 70 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1958. The said disputes were clubbed together and by a common order dated 22.2.1997, the Additional Registrar of Co Operative Societies directed the Respondent to consider the objections filed by the Petitioners and to finalize the seniority list thereafter within six months, in accordance with law and also in accordance with the Subsidiary Rules of the Respondent-Federation. The Respondent promptly challenged the same by way of appeals before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which were disposed of a common order rejecting all the three appeals. The Respondent thereafter preferred review petitions unsuccessfully. The Respondent then challenged the said order of the Tribunal by way of writ proceedings before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Respondent to prepare a seniority list within a period of three months from the date of the order namely 10.10.2006 as originally directed by the Additional Registrar of Co-Operative Societies. This Court while disposing of the writ petition also held that the consequences of the seniority list would follow according to the Rules on the list being prepared. The same was challenged by way of an appeal before a Division Bench. The Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. It is thus the claim of the Petitioners that they are entitled to the benefits extended to Dr. H. Hanumanthappa and other senior Officers. The Respondent thereafter prepared a seniority list of officers-in-charge/Training Co-Ordinators in the scale of 1725-2350, which was the pre-revised scale and held that the benefits extended to Dr. Hanumanthappa shall also be extended to the senior Officers notionally. However, the financial benefits to the Petitioners 1 and 2 were extended only from 30.6.2001. The claim of the Petitioners was that the Federation has committed an error in placing certain Officers above Petitioners 1 and 2 in the final seniority list and in extending the financial benefits only with effect from 30.6.2001. The Petitioners, therefore made individual representations seeking rectification of the order, which was not in accordance with the order of the Additional Registrar of the Co-Operative Societies, which had attained finality before this Court in the writ proceedings. Petitioner No. 3 however did not seek to challenge the seniority list since he was aggrieved only by the financial benefits. Petitioner No. 1 received an endorsement rejecting his representation by an endorsement dated 30.1.2008. Petitioner No. 2 was also informed that his representation was rejected. Petitioner-No. 3 also was informed that his claim was rejected. Therefore the Petitioners have approached this Court.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would primarily contend that there is no basis for the Federation to have restricted the financial benefits to which the Petitioners were entitled from a date anterior to 30.6.2001. The order dated 20.12.2007 merely extends financial benefits from 30.6.2001. This according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is possibly on account of the observations made by the Tribunal in the appeals filed by the Federation, as already stated, in Appeal No. 606/97 and connected appeals, wherein the Tribunal has incidentally noted that insofar as the contention as regards Dr. H. Hanumanthappa and other senior Officers not being entitled to financial benefits with retrospective effect has been taken as a direction to extend such financial benefits only with effect from the date of dismissal of the appeals by the Tribunal. Incidentally, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners points out that the appeals were filed by the Federation and not by the Petitioners. In the further proceedings in W.P. No. 2911/06 which was disposed of on 10.10.2006, this Court has clearly held that the seniority list has to be prepared in terms of the directions issued by the Additional Registrar of Co-Operative Societies dated 22.2.97 and the consequences of such seniority list prepared would follow automatically, which according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners would include the financial benefits accrued to the Petitioners on the seniority list being prepared. The observations of the Tribunal therefore merged with the order of this Court and would no longer relate to the financial benefits being denied to the Petitioner and the said observation of the Tribunal was therefore illegal and cannot be sustained.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand would submit that the Federation has not committed any error as the Federation was strictly bound by the observations of the Tribunal, which this Court has not chosen to address in the course of its order and the contention that the same has merged with the order of this Court is not a tenable contention. Neither has it been raised before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench and therefore, the Federation was justified in taking cue from the observations of the Tribunal as to the date from which the financial benefits could be extended to the Petitioners and would seek to justify the same notwithstanding that no statement of objections are filed.
Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, there is no logic behind the contention that the Tribunal having incidentally observed that since several Officers including Dr. H. Hanumanthappa had retired from service, the question of extending financial benefits retrospectively to those officers could be held as a direction binding the Federation to deny the financial benefits to the present Petitioners on the preparation of the seniority list in terms of the directions of the Additional Registrar of Co-Operative Societies by his order dated 22.2.1997. Accordingly, the seniority list having been prepared, the financial benefits could also be extended to the Petitioners from the date of such seniority list being completed. Incidentally, the Petitioners have retired from service during the pendency of this petition. It is therefore all the more necessary that the Federation extended the financial benefits which have been denied, expeditiously, especially since the Petitioners are in the evening of their life.
Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-'' K" is quashed. The Federation is directed to extend the financial benefits pursuant to the seniority of the Petitioners having been fixed within a period of three months, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.