Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Ganapathi Prasanna

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2012RP/951/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenged remuneration disparities between Special Prosecutors appointed by the Law Department and Home Department. The Court held that advocates fall outside the scope of Rule 15 for retired government servants and found no discrimination.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed; no merit found in the claim that the petitioners constitute a different class entitled to equal remuneration.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Ganapathi Prasanna — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO

¶6

R.P. No.951/2012

¶7

BETWEEN:-

¶8

1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶9

2 THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶10

3 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, (LAW AND ORDER, COFEPOSA AND PROSECUTIONS) BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶11

PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, HCGP)

¶13

¶14

AND:-

¶15

SRI GANAPATHI PRASANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS , SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, R/O. NO.378, 8TH MAIN, 17TH BRIDGE CROSS, MALLESWARAM WEST, BANGALORE – 560055.

¶16

RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI PANDURANGA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶18

This Review Petition is filed U/O.47 of CPC, praying for review the Order dated 25/05/2012 passed in W.P.No.41140/2010 (S-RES), on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This R.P. is coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Special A.P.P. Appointed on contract under Rule 15 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 constitute different class and the Special Prosecutors appointed by the Law Department under Law Officers Appointment Rules, constitute a different class by themselves. Therefore, discrimination in the remuneration does not amount to violation of rule of equality. The provisions of Rule 15 of

¶21

¶22

Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 are

¶23

extracted hereunder:-

¶24

“15. Provision for appointment of retired Government Servants and for appointment by contract.-

¶25

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or in the rules of recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post, the Government may, if it considers necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is in public interest so to do.-

¶26

(a) appoint to a service or a post any person who has retired from the service of the Government, Central Government or any other State Government on such terms and conditions and for such period, as may be necessary, and after consultation with the commission where such consultation is necessary.

¶27

(b) appoint to the following categories of posts any person who in its opinion is able to discharge the duties of such post on such terms and conditions as may be determined by agreement-

¶28

(i) posts of Heads of Departments when suitable officers are not available for appointment,

¶29

¶30

according to the rules of recruitment applicable to the posts;

¶31

(ii) posts requiring technical qualifications

¶32

(iii) posts in the personal establishment of a Minister, a Minister of State or a Deputy Minister:

¶33

(iv) posts in the personal establishment of a Chairperson of a Commission or a Committee constituted by the Government, where such Chairperson is a non-official and has been given the status of a Deputy Minister;

¶34

(vi) Group C posts in the legal cell of the Karnataka Bhavan, New Delhi, when suitable persons are not available for appointment, according to the rules of recruitment applicable to the posts.

¶35

(vi) Posts of Personal Assistants, Second Division Assistants, Drivers and Group 'D' posts sanctioned in Revenue Department for assisting the Members of Parliament and any other post which may be sanctioned in Revenue Department for the said purpose:

¶36

¶37

[Provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or in the agreement or the terms, conditions and the period of appointment of any person under clause (a) or clause (b), the services of a person so appointed shall be liable for termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by such person to the Government or by the Government to such person and the period of such notice shall be one month:

¶38

Provided further that the services of any such person may be terminated forthwith and on such termination he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.]

¶39

(2) The total period of appointment of any person or the total period of appointment in any post under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall not exceed five years:

¶40

¶41

Provided that appointments to posts mentioned in sub-clause (iii) and sub-clause (vi) of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) may be made for a period of co-terminus with the tenure of office of the Minister, the Minister of State the Deputy Minister or the Member of Parliament concerned.

¶42

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) a person in the service of the Government shall not be eligible for appointment under said clause.

¶43

On plain reading of the Rule it discloses that the Rule would envisage appointment of retired Government servants on contract basis on certain conditions. The advocates appointed under Rule 15 are not retired Government servants and therefore, appointment of advocates under Rule 15 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 cannot be applied to them. There is virtually no discrimination between the lawyers appointed as Special Prosecutors by the Home Department and by the Law Department. In that view of the matter, whatever remuneration paid to the

¶44

¶45

prosecutors appointed by the Home Department shall be payable to the Law Department. In that view, there is no merit in the review. The Petition is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

NM*

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Ganapathi Prasanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Sri Ganapathi Prasanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Hanumanthappa S/O Muniyappa Vs K S Krishna Murthy S/O Srinivasachar

Boraiah Vs Boraiah B

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs Siddappa

Mr Wilfred C Pais Vs Diana R Pais

M/S S M Trading Company Vs Stanpacks (India) Limited

Sushila Vs Shankar Alagouda Patil