AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners in this writ petition challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 13.9.2007 made in Application No.2568/1999 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (for short Tribunal''), wherein the Tribunal quashed the endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent - 3rd petitioner herein and directed the 3rd respondent - 3rd petitioner herein to determine the deemed date of eligibility of the applicant/respondent herein within one month and to refix his pay and pension from the said deemed date have filed this writ petition.
The respondent herein approached the Tribunal by filing an Application No.2568/1999 challenging the endorsement dated 31.3.1999 and also seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to release all consequential monetary benefits from the deemed date of promotion as Reserve Police Inspector w.e.f. 20.12.1975. In the application, the respondent has contended that he was appointed as Reserve Police Constable during the year 1949 in the erstwhile State of" Hyderabad. While he was in service, his services stood allotted to the new State of Mysore u/s 115 of the State Reorganization Act, 1956. The new State of Mysore was formed w.e.f. 1.1.1956 under the powers of Reorganization Act enacted, by the parliament in exercise of its power under Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution of India. Section 11.5 of the Reorganization Act provides for allotment, of civil servants to the erstwhile States of Territories of which were transferred to the successor State by the provision of Part-II of the Act and accordingly the services of the respondent herein stood statutorily transferred to the new State of Mysore now called as State of Karnataka.
The respondent further contended that after reorganization of the State the Central Government for the purpose of effecting integration of services laid down the principles relating to equation of posts and. preparation of seniority lists. The Central Government also directed the Stale Government to decide provisionally the equation of the posts and also to fix the seniority and to call for representation from the aggrieved officials to send the same for final decision by the Government: of India. The State Government also directed the appointing authorities of new State of Mysore to make provisional promotions on the basis of provisional inter state seniority list subject to the clear conditions that the promotions should be revised in accordance with the ranking and the final seniority list to be effective from 1.11.1956 as decided by the Government of India of its powers u/s 115(5) of the Act. In terms of the above direction, the Authorities of the State Government have prepared the seniority list with deemed date of promotion in the establishment.
The respondent, who was working as a Sub-Inspector, has been promoted as Inspector of Police on 20.12.1975 and ultimately he was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.1989. During the course of preparation of the seniority list of Police Inspectors, the respondents have assigned the deemed date of promotion for the post of Inspector as 20.12.1975. On the basis of the same, the respondent was hoping to get. promotion for the post of Police Inspector as well as consequential monetary benefits from the deemed date of promotion in terms of the Karnataka State Civil Service (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973, but the Authorities of the State did not extend the above benefits even after his retirement. The respondent contended that under Sections 4 and 11 of the K.C.S (Regulation of PPP) Act, 1973, he is entitled to receive all consequential monetary benefits for the promotional post of Police Inspector from the deemed date. However, even alter his retirement, the said benefit was not extended, In view of that, he has given a representation on 22.2.1999 pointing out that in terms of the law declared by this Court, and also law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 1995 (5) SCC 92 in the case of S.R. Bhagwat -v/s- State of Mysore, he was entitled to receive the monetary benefits from the deemed date of his promotion as Police Inspector. However, the Authorities of the State without considering the representation of the respondent and without considering the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred to above by its endorsement dated 31.3.1999 rejected the same contending that as per Rules 4(3) of the K.C.S.(Regulation of PPP) Rule. 1973. ''here is no provision for granting arrears of salary for the period, during which period, he has not worked. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the respondent, approached the Tribunal contending that the endorsement issued by the Authorities of the State is contrary to law. in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court cited supra, he is entitled for the monetary benefits from the deemed date of his promotion.
The Tribunal by its order impugned allowed the application and directed the petitioners herein to determine the deemed date of eligibility of this respondent within one month and thereafter the Authorities shall refix his pay and pension from the said deemed date of eligibility as per the Rules. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.2007 made in Application No.2568/1999. the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
Smt. Revathi Adinath Narde, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners eontended that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and error apparent on the face of the records. As per Rule 4(3) of the KCS (Regulation of PPP) Rule 1973, there is no provision for granting arrears of salary for the period during which he did not work. The order passed by the ''Tribunal is contrary to the said Rules. Though the deemed date of promotion was fixed as 1975, the respondent is not entitled for any monetary benefits under the said Rule. Hence, she sought for quashing the order impugned by allowing the writ petition.
Sri M V Hiremath. Learned Counsel appearing for for respondent argued in support of the order passed by the Tribunal and contended that the respondent is entitled for the monetary benefits from the deemed date of promotion. As per the Reorganization Act framed by the Government of India, once the employee allotted to the transferee State under the Reorganization Act, he is entitled for all monetary benefits. The denial of the monetary benefits from the deemed date of promotion as Reserve Police Inspector is contrary to law and there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the parties and perused the order impugned in the above writ petition.
It is not in dispute that the respondent was initially appointed as Reserve Police Constable in the year 1949 in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. In view of reorganization of the State, the service of the respondent stood transferred to the new State of Mysore u/s 115 of the Reorganization Act, the respondent is entitled for protection of his seniority,
pay and promotion. Though the respondent was promoted as Inspector of Police on 20.1.2.1975 in the seniority list, the deemed date of promotion 20.12.1975, the monetary benefit which the respondent is legally entitled is denied on the ground that Section 4(3) of the KCS (Regulation of PPP) Act, 1973 came in the way. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in S.R. Bhagwat and others, Vs. State of Mysore, clearly field that Sub-Sections (2), (3), (8) of Section 4 are clearly conflicted with the binding decision of the Division Bench of the High Court and accordingly the aforesaid provisions are read down by observing that the statutory provisions contained in Sub Sections (2), (3), (8) of Section 4 providing that such persons who have been given deemed promotions shall not be entitled to any arrears for the period prio(sic) to the date of their actual promotion, shall not apply in cases where directions to the contrary of competent Courts against the respondent-State have become final. Hence the respondent is entitled for monetary benefits from the deemed date of promotion. The Tribunal taking into consideration the law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court directed the State Government to determine the deemed date of eligibility of the respondent, and thereafter refix the pay and pension from the deemed date of eligibility as per Rules within two months. We find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the in the said direction. It is open to the Authorities of the State to determine the deemed date of eligibility of the respondent and to take appropriate decision in the matter. The petitioners have not made out a erase to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.