Partly allowed

Sri K S Kiran v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2024WP/14079/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a corrigendum denying salary during deputation to the Chief Minister. The Court held the correction illegal and arbitrary, violating civil service rules and Article 14, and directed salary payment. Priority: Pension and employment issues.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order treating deputation as contract basis is quashed. Respondent No.1 is directed to pay the petitioner's salary from 18.10.2019 to 31.10.2023.

Sri K S Kiran Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39640 WP No. 14079 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.14079 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. K.S. KIRAN S/O LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS MANAGER (TECHNICAL) KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION NO.1/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU R/AT NO.414, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS IDEAL HOME, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU-560098.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION KSFC BHAVANA, NO.1/1 THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560052.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI PRINCE ISSAC, AGA R1; SRI GIRISH R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39640 WP No. 14079 of 2023

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.CR 138 SA OO SE 2021 DTD 13.06.2023 PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-P, AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to release the salary that he was entitled to between 18.10.2019 to 31.01.2023, when he was on deputation to respondent No.1 in various capacities. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses.

¶19

(i) The petitioner contends that he was employed

¶20

as Deputy Manager with respondent No.2 and was later promoted as Manager (Technical) in the year 2010. He was sent on deputation to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) during the year 2017-18. His services were thereafter lent to the Urban Development

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39640 WP No. 14079 of 2023

¶22

Department on 30.08.2019. Later, a re-posting order was issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce on 03.09.2019. The respondent No.2 issued 'no objection' on 05.09.2019, for lending the services of petitioner to BBMP. While petitioner was working at BBMP, he was deputed on 18.10.2019, to work as Officer on Special Duty to the Hon'ble Chief Minister (Urban Development Department) until further orders. (ii) He contends that on 31.07.2021, while repatriating the services of persons on deputation from various departments, the petitioner was continued as officer on Special Duty to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. However, his designation was wrongly shown as 'Executive Engineer in KIADB' instead of showing him as 'on deputation to the Urban Development Department'. Therefore, he submitted a representation dated 26.08.2021 to effect necessary corrections. In the meanwhile, the salary payable to him for the period he was on deputation as Officer on Special Duty was not paid. Hence, he submitted a representation on 23.02.2022, requesting the respondents to release the salary. The petitioner was thereafter posted as Executive Engineer (Technical Cell) in Urban Development Department, but he was not permitted to work as Executive

¶23

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39640 WP No. 14079 of 2023

¶24

Engineer (Technical Cell). His service was repatriated to the parent department. Accordingly, he reported back to work at respondent No.2 on 01.02.2023. (iii) The petitioner contends that since he did not receive the salary during the period on which he was deputation, he submitted the representations dated 03.02.2023 and 15.03.2023. It was brought to the notice of respondent No.1 that he was not paid the salary when he was on deputation from the period 18.10.2019 to 31.01.2023. He also sought reimbursement of the medical bills. Since there was no response on the representations, petitioner filed W.P No.7704/2023, for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to release the withheld salary. The writ petition was disposed off in terms of an order dated 06.04.2023 and the respondents were directed to consider the representations of the petitioner. The petitioner then submitted another representation dated 25.04.2023, enclosing the copy of the order dated 06.04.2023 passed in W.P No.7704/2023. However, respondent No.1, instead of considering the representation, issued the impugned corrigendum bearing No. CR 138 Sa Oo Se 2021 dated 13.06.2023 to the order dated 18.10.2019, to read that the services of the petitioner was on

¶25

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39640 WP No. 14079 of 2023

¶26

contract basis and not on deputation. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Rule 50(1) of Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1957 (henceforth referred to as KCSR, 1957),

¶28

“when a Government servant is permanently transferred or deputed from one department to another under the provisions of Rule 16 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, he will draw pay in the new post at the same stage in which he was drawing in the old post and earn the next increment on the date on which he would have earned it had he continued in the old post”.

¶29

He also contended that under Rule 50(2)(b) of the KSCR, 1957,

¶30

"when a Government servant is deputed to another department on special temporary duty against no sanctioned post, he will continue to draw pay in the grade of the post held by him in his parent department and will continue to retain a lien in his parent department”.

¶31

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39640 WP No. 14079 of 2023

¶32

He contends that petitioner was posted to the Department of Commerce and Industries on deputation and his service was continued till 31.01.2023 However, the respondent No.1 has now issued the impugned corrigendum to alter deputation to "on contract" and thereby denied him the benefits of the deputation under Rule 50 of the KSCR, 1957. He therefore contends that the impugned corrigendum is arbitrary and contravenes to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

The respondent No.1 has filed a statement of objections contending inter-alia that the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer at respondent No.2. Therefore his parent department was the respondent No.2 and he was governed by the conditions of service prevalent in the respondent No.2. It is contended that the petitioner cannot be treated as a government servant and the provisions of KCSR, 1957 are not applicable to him. It is contended that the appointment of petitioner as Officer on Special Duty (Bengaluru Development) to the Hon'ble Chief Minister could not be treated as deputation. It is contended that employees who are not government servants cannot be deputed to posts in the Government . However, if the services of such person is felt

¶34

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39640 WP No. 14079 of 2023

¶35

necessary then they could be appointed on contract basis as per Rule 15(1)(B) of KCS (General Recruitment) Rules. It is contended in view of the aforesaid position, an addendum dated 13.06.2023 was issued to the notification dated 18.10.2019 that the deputation of the petitioner was on contract basis. It is further contended that the terms and conditions of such contractual appointment were issued vide Government Order No. CR 138 SaOoSe 2021 dated 13.06.2023. It is contended that the respondent No.2 as the parent department had to agree to these terms and conditions and submit an agreement drawn on a stamp papers with a face value of Rs.50/-. It is contended that neither the petitioner nor his parent department have submitted the agreement and hence the pay and salary of the petitioner is not disbursed. This was purportedly communicated to the petitioner on 20.07.2024 vide letter bearing No. CR 275 SaOoSe 2024 addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. Further it is contended that the pay and salary of the petitioner is to be paid from the day he assumed charge as Officer on Special Duty to the Hon'ble Chief Minister till he was

¶36

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39640 WP No. 14079 of 2023

¶37

released on 02.08.2021, that too only after he submits an agreement as statement above.

¶38

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶39

It is seen that the petitioner, in terms of an order bearing No. C Ah Si 2006 SaOoSe 2019 dated 18.10.2019, was deputed and posted as Officer on Special Duty to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and continued as such. On 31.10.2022, the Hon’ble Chief Minister again directed the Authorities to post the petitioner as Executive Engineer (Technical Cell), Urban Development Department. Though, it is alleged that he was not allowed to work as such, but his services were repatriated to parent department - respondent No.2. The petitioner reported to duty at respondent No.2 on 01.02.2023. It is therefore evident that the petitioner was entitled to the salary during the period on which he was deputation as Officer on Special Duty to the Hon’ble Chief Minister between 18.10.2019 to 31.10.2023. There is nothing placed on record to establish that after petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer

¶40

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39640 WP No. 14079 of 2023

¶41

(Technical Cell) in the Urban Development Department, he reported to duty as the Executive Engineer (Technical Cell).

¶42

In that view of the matter, applying Rule 50 of KSCR, as stated above, the petitioner is entitled to salary for period on which he was on deputation as Officer on Special Duty to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Consequently, the impugned order passed by respondent, denying the payment of salary by treating the period as on contract from the department of respondent No.2, deserves to be interfered with. The petitioner must have been informed in advance that his deputation as Officer on Special Duty to the Hon’ble Chief Minister was on contract basis. He could have made an informed choice to go on deputation on contract or not. The act of respondent No.1 in now amending the order dated 18.10.2019 to treat the petitioner as deputed on contract basis is illegal and arbitrary.

¶43

Consequently, this writ petition is allowed in part .

¶44

The impugned order bearing No. CR 138 SaOoSe 2021 dated 13.06.2023 passed by respondent No.1 is quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to pass appropriate order to pay

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:39640 WP No. 14079 of 2023

¶46

10 -

¶47

the salary to the petitioner for the period 18.10.2019 to 31.10.2023 on the basis of his last drawn salary. This shall be done by respondent No.1 within a period of three months from

¶48

the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶51

THM

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri K S Kiran v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Kiran v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri. Madhu H P Vs the State of Karnataka

Pramod Kumar Verma Vs Syndicate Bank

Sri Jagannatha K G Vs the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation

Sri. Guru Siddarameshwara Education Society Regd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha .G.M Vs the Principal Secretary

Nagamma Vs Principal Secretary to Government