Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 769 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. G. N. Mruthyunjaya

2019-03-29

B.V.NAGARATHNA, H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (Tribunal, for short) in A.Nos.520/2010 and 467/2011, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the applications filed by the applicant. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that applicant was appointed as a Stenographer on 18.01.1989 in the Department of Directorate of Youth Services and Sports, Government of Karnataka. Subsequently, applicant had passed Subordinate Accounts Services Rules Examinations and he submitted a representation dated 02.01.1996 to the first respondent requesting for promotion to the post of Accounts Superintendent. Pursuant to the same, first respondent wrote a letter dated 23.02.1996 to the second respondent to take necessary action for amendment of Cadre and Recruitment Rules since the Government had a policy decision to provide equal opportunity to First Division Assistants and Stenographers for promotion and to promote the applicant to the cadre of Accounts Superintendent. Pursuant to that letter, second respondent by order dated 06.04.1996 placed the applicant in independent charge of the post of Accounts Superintendent under Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs for short) while repatriating the services of one Sri G.Kumara Swamy, who was discharging his duties as Accounts Superintendent, to his parent department. Subsequently, by Official Memorandum dated 20.06.1996, second respondent, on recording satisfaction of the services of the applicant appointed the applicant against a vacant post of Accounts Superintendent in the pay-scale of Rs.1720-3300. Thereafter, on 02.09.1996, applicants pay was fixed under Rule 42-B of KCSRs. 4. It is the further case of the applicant that on 27.09.1997, Finance Department issued an order rectifying the anomalies in the revision of pay-scales to certain posts based upon the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee. In that process, pay-scale of the post in the Youth Services and Sports Department was brought on par with Accounts Superintendent in the State Accounts Department. The second respondent, by Official Memorandum dated 07.11.1997, fixed the applicants pay with effect from 27.08.1997. In view of the revision of pay-scale of the post of Accounts Superintendent, this post became Group-B post. Subsequently, second respondent published a gradation list of Accounts Superintendent as on 1.1.2000 vide Circular dated 6.4.2000/19.5.2000. In the said seniority list, applicants name was at Sl.No.2. 5. In view of the revision of pay-scale of the post of Accounts Superintendent, this post became Group-B post. Subsequently, second respondent published a gradation list of Accounts Superintendent as on 1.1.2000 vide Circular dated 6.4.2000/19.5.2000. In the said seniority list, applicants name was at Sl.No.2. 5. Further case of the applicant is that Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DPAR) had issued a Circular dated 1.4.2000, by which 80% of the vacant posts were abolished. The post of Stenographer had been re-designated as Stenographer-cum-clerk and the posts of Assistant and Typist as Typist-cum-Clerk and they were to discharge the duties of the post of Group-C. Therefore, the Government had issued a direction to the Department to frame Cadre and Recruitment Rules. From the date of appointment of the applicant as Accounts Superintendent, he was working against a vacant post and he had been paid the salary attached to the said post. Suddenly, after a lapse of a decade, respondent had issued a show-cause notice for cancellation of promotion given to the applicant to the cadre of Accounts Superintendent. The applicant gave a detailed reply to the same. On 14.12.2007, respondent passed an order of reversion reverting the applicant to his original post. Being aggrieved by the same, applicant had filed an application before the Tribunal in A.No.5026/2007. The same was disposed off on 11.12.2007, with liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority under Rule 19 of Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules. Subsequently, applicant filed an appeal before the State Government. The State Government, by order dated 02.12.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. Being aggrieved by the same, applicant again approached the Tribunal by filing A.Nos.520/2010 & 467/2011. The Tribunal, by order, dated 24.01.2018 allowed the applications and passed the following order: "(i) Both the applications are allowed. (ii) Official Memorandum bearing No.DYSS/50/C2/ 89-90 dated 4.12.2007 at Annexure-A12 on the file of respondent No.1, Official Memorandum bearing No.DYSS/50/C2/89-90 dated 21.1.2010 at Annexure A-24 on the file of respondent No.1 (both challenged in A.No.520/2010) and order No.Yu.SE.E.41.Yu.E.Se.2008 dated 2.12.2010 at Annexure A-18 on the file of respondent No.1 (impugned in A.No.467/2011) are quashed. The applicant shall be deemed to have retired as Accounts Superintendent and he shall be granted all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order." 6. The applicant shall be deemed to have retired as Accounts Superintendent and he shall be granted all consequential benefits including pensionary benefits within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order." 6. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, on 31.12.2016 the applicant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Till that date, he was working as Accounts Superintendent and he had been paid the salary attached to that post. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the Tribunal, the State has filed this writ petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers. 8. Sri I.Taranath Poojary, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the State, submitted that the applicant was placed in independent charge of the post of Accounts Superintendent under Rule 32 of KCSRs. As on that day, there was no provision under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules for promotion from the post of Stenographer to the post of Accounts Superintendent. Therefore, initial appointment itself was contrary to the provisions under the Rules. 9. He further contended that the applicant was promoted under Rule 32 of KCSRs. Hence, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, to continue his services in the post of Accounts Superintendent and he is not entitled for pension in the pay-scale fixed to the post of Accounts Superintendent. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 10. Per contra, Sri V.K.Gudodagi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant was placed in an independent charge of the post of Accounts Superintendent under Rule 32 of KCSRs. on the ground that he had passed the Examination prescribed for the said post. After satisfaction of his work, the Department has appointed him as Accounts Superintendent against a vacant post. The pay-scale of the applicant has been fixed in the pay-scale of Rs.1720- 3300 under Rule 42-B of KCSRs. Subsequently, the post of Accounts Superintendent had been upgraded from Group-C to Group-B. He had been allowed to continue in the said post for more than a decade. In the meantime, respondent had published the seniority list in the cadre of Accounts Superintendent. The applicants name was at Sl.No.2. The promotion which was given by the Department was not on any mis-representation or fraud played by the applicant. In the meantime, respondent had published the seniority list in the cadre of Accounts Superintendent. The applicants name was at Sl.No.2. The promotion which was given by the Department was not on any mis-representation or fraud played by the applicant. That contrary to the provisions of law he had been reverted back to his original post, i.e., Stenographer. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. It is noted that the applicant was appointed as a Stenographer on 18.08.1989. On the ground that he had passed the Examination prescribed for the post of Accounts Superintendent, on the directions of the first respondent, second respondent by order dated 06.04.1996, placed him in independent charge in the post of Accounts Superintendent in the pay-scale of Rs.1720-3300 under Rule 32 of KCSRs. Subsequently, by Official Memorandum dated 20.06.1996, applicant was appointed as Accounts Superintendent against a vacant post. On satisfaction of the completion of the services of the applicant, the Department has revised the pay-scale under Rule 42-B of KCSRs. Further, the department had issued the seniority list of the cadre of Accounts Superintendent. In that list, applicant had been placed at Sl.No.2. The applicant had been allowed to work for more than a decade and in view of the above, he has acquired a substantive right in the post of Accounts Superintendent. 12. The applicant had been placed in independent charge of the post of Accounts Superintendent under Rule 32 of KCSRs. on 06.04.1996. From that date, till his retirement, he was working in the same post and was drawing the salary attached to the said post. The applicant was placed in independent charge on the basis of passing the Examination. He had not misrepresented or played any fraud. Rather, the respondents themselves had placed the applicant in independent charge under Rule 32 of KCSRs. Subsequently, on expressing satisfaction regarding his service, he was appointed as Accounts Superintendent against a vacant post and his salary had been fixed under Rule 42-B of KCSRs. Even in the seniority list prepared for the post of Accounts Superintendent, his name was at Sl.No.2 and he was allowed to work in the said post for more than a decade till his retirement on superannuation. He had worked in the said post for substantial period of time without being questioned by the respondents. Even in the seniority list prepared for the post of Accounts Superintendent, his name was at Sl.No.2 and he was allowed to work in the said post for more than a decade till his retirement on superannuation. He had worked in the said post for substantial period of time without being questioned by the respondents. At the fag end of his service the respondents have passed the order of reversion. The order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the respondent confirming the orders dated 04.12.2007 and 21.01.2010 in our view, is contrary to Article 311 of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of the KCS (CCA) Rules. Hence, the same is unsustainable. The Tribunal, after considering all these aspects rightly allowed the applications filed by the applicant. The Tribunal was justified in granting the relief to the applicant. 13. The applicant, till his retirement, for more than two decades, had worked as Accounts Superintendent and he had been paid the salary attached to that post. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.