The Commissioner vs K.G. Shankara Narayana Rao

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—By the impugned order dated 3.1.2010 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application Nos. 2442-45/2002, a direction is issued against the petitioners to give all consequential benefits in favour of the respondents as per its earlier order dated 24.4.1997 in Application No. 1636-39/1999. The records reveal that, while the respondents were working as Headmasters (Group B posts), they were promoted to the posts of Group A (Junior Class I cadre) on 30.9.1993. Such promotions of the respondents were made in the vacancies which were required to be filled by 25% direct recruitment as on that date; since the direct recruitment could not take place for a long period and as the Government was of the opinion that it may take some more time to fill up such posts by way of direct recruitment, the respondents who were eligible to be appointed to the Group A Junior Class I Posts in all respects, were promoted to the said posts w.e.f. 30.9.1993. Such promotions were made as per the then existing Rule 17(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. The respondents worked as Junior Class I Officers from 30.9.1993 till they attained the age of superannuation i.e. for about 2-3 years. Though the petitioners extracted the work of Junior Class I Officers from the respondents from 30.9.1993 till the date of their respective retirement and though the respondents worked as Junior Class I Officers from 30.9.1993 till the date of their retirement satisfactorily, they were not paid salary attached to the posts of Junior Class I Officers from 30.9.1993 till their retirement. Thus, the respondents approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by filing Application Nos. 2442-45/2002 which came to be allowed by the impugned order.

Sri. Bajentri, learned Government Advocate submits that the appointments of the respondents to the posts of Junior Class I Officers came to be withdrawn on 26.9.1998 in view of filling up of 25% posts by direct recruitment and therefore, the respondents are not entitled for pay attached to Junior Class I Posts.

Sri. Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the order of the Court below by relying on Rule 17(c), the then existing Rule.

Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note Rule 17(c) as it then existed during the relevant period, which reads thus:

Appointment by direct recruitment or by promotion in certain cases-Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, the appointing authority may -

(a) to (b)..

(c) fill by promotion temporarily on the basis of seniority-cum-merit a vacancy required to be filled by direct recruitment where selection to the post has not been finally made and there is likelihood of delay in making direct recruitment. No such promotion shall be made unless a requisition has been sent to the Commission or to the appropriate recruiting authority for selection of a suitable candidate. A candidate temporarily promoted under this sub-rule shall not have any preferential claim for regular promotion and also shall not count the period of service in the promoted post for seniority; he shall revert to his original post on the expiry of one year or on the appointment of a direct recruit whichever is earlier:

Provided that when any promotion is required to be made in consultation with the Commission, the promotion shall be made after such consultation.

The period of one year as prescribed in Rule 17(c) is amended to three years w.e.f. 29.11.1991 by virtue of notification No. DPAR 27 SRR 1991 dated 29.11.1991. By the said amendment, the words ''three years'' are substituted.

From the aforementioned Rule, it is clear that the appointing authority may, notwithstanding anything contained in Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, fill by promotion temporarily on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, a vacancy required to be filled by direct recruitment where the selection to the post has not been finally made and there is likelihood of delay in making direct recruitment.

In the matter on hand, 25% of the posts relating to Junior Class I Officers which were to be filled up by direct recruitment, were not filled up for a long period and since there was likelihood of delay in making direct recruitment, the respondents who were eligible to occupy the post of Junior Class I Officers, were promoted from Group B posts. In other words, the respondents were promoted to Junior Class I posts in accordance with Rule 17(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 as it then existed. Undisputedly, the respondents were qualified to hold the said posts of Junior Class I Officers. So also, it is not in dispute that the respondents were in Junior Class I posts w.e.f. 30.9.1993 till the date of their retirement. All of them had held the post for about 2-3 years. Since they have worked as Junior Class I Officers, the respondents are entitled to the pay attached to such posts. Merely because the direct recruitments have taken place subsequently i.e. after the lapse of 3-4 years after the retirement of the respondents, the respondents cannot be penalized without any pay. Since the respondents have worked in the posts of Junior Class I Officers in accordance with the then existing Rules, they are entitled for pay attached to such posts. In view of the same, the Tribunal is justified in granting the relief in favour of the respondents. Hence, no interference is called for.

Petitions fail and the same are dismissed.

We make it clear that the respondents are entitled for arrears of pay from 14.3.1994 (i.e. 3 years prior to filing of application before the Tribunal at the first instance). However, for other benefits such as pensionary relief etc., the respondents are entitled to the same w.e.f. 30.9.1993.