Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. Sri K T Kannan

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2024WP/4316/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's quashing of a pay withdrawal order was dismissed. The Court held that the Tribunal correctly ruled that the word 'ignoring' in Rule 7A(2) justified fixing pay without the earlier stepping-up benefit, and that option exercise was not a prerequisite. (69 words)

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected and the order of the Tribunal was upheld.

State of Karnataka Vs Sri K T Kannan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34796-DB WP No. 4316 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO.4316 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶11

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT IN KARNATAKA, NO.17, JAYA NIVAS, SHANKARA MUTT ROAD BENGALURU - 04

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. K.T.KANNAN S/O SRI. K.T.PARTHASARATHY AGE: 67 YEARS, RETD. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT, U/R 441

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34796-DB WP No. 4316 of 2020

¶19

KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LIMITED, NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 020. R/AT NO.47, 5^TH MAIN, 4^TH PHASE, 7^TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. R.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ON 30.07.2019 IN APPLICATION NO.7491/2013 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:34796-DB WP No. 4316 of 2020

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶29

The State represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Bengaluru and the Director of Co-operative Audit in Karnataka are before this Court in this writ petition questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 30.7.2019 in Application No.7491/2013 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'Tribunal') wherein the respondent's application questioning Annexure-A7 dated 24.7.2004 withdrawing of stepping up of pay granted was quashed.

¶30

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent and one Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao were appointed as First Division Assistants under Annexure-A1, order of appointment dated 11.3.1977 and they were drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs.400-900. On 31.1.1985, the respondent was promoted as Senior Auditor, whereas his Junior Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao continued in the cadre of First Division Assistant and availed the benefit of time bound as well as senior scale of pay on completion of 15 years of service. Subsequently, he was promoted to the cadre of Senior Auditor. On promotion of

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34796-DB WP No. 4316 of 2020

¶32

Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao to the cadre of Senior Auditor and since he was drawing higher pay than the respondent, the respondent requested the Authorities for stepping up of his pay with that of his Junior Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao. Under order dated 03.7.1995 (Annexure-A4) the respondent's pay was stepped up to that of one Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao his Junior. Subsequently, by virtue of the postponement of eligibility date of the respondent in the cadre of Senior Auditor, his pay was re-fixed in terms of order dated 05.10.2001 (Annexure-A6). It is pertinent to note here itself that under Annexures-A14 and A15, the date of eligibility of the respondent is restored. In the meanwhile, the respondent had once again sought for stepping up of his pay to that of his Junior-Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao and under impugned order at Annexure-A7 dated 24.7.2004, again the respondent's pay was stepped up as at column No.2 to the said order and at column No.11, the benefit granted is withdrawn stating that the Rule-7A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Automatic Grant of Special Promotion to Senior Scale of Pay) (Amendment) Rules, 1994 (for short '1994 Rules') would not be applicable. Questioning the said withdrawing of already granted stepping up of pay, the respondent was before

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:34796-DB WP No. 4316 of 2020

¶35

the Tribunal. The Tribunal under impugned order set aside the order insofar as withdrawing stepping up of pay granted to the respondent. Questioning the said order of Tribunal, the State Authorities are before this Court in this writ petition.

¶36

Sri. M.Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioner-Authorities would submit that the respondent has not exercised his option, whereas one Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao has exercised his option. Therefore, he was drawing higher pay than the respondent. Further, he submits that Rule-7A of the 1994 Rules is not applicable to the case of the respondent since he has not opted in terms of 1994 Rules. Thus, learned AGA would pray for allowing the writ petition.

¶37

Learned counsel Sri. R.Naveen Kumar for the respondent supports the order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that the State-Authorities misinterpreted Rule-7A(2) and withdrew the stepping up of pay granted to the respondent under impugned order before the Tribunal. Learned counsel would further submit that Rule-7A(2) would state that if a Government Servant has availed the benefit of stepping up

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34796-DB WP No. 4316 of 2020

¶39

of pay, while granting him senior scale of pay either in the same or subsequent cadre his pay shall be fixed in the senior scale of pay by ignoring the benefit of such stepping up of pay. Thus, learned counsel would submit that even if the Government Servant had availed the benefit in the lower cadre, once he is promoted to the higher cadre, he would be entitled for such benefit. Therefore, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point that would arise for consideration is as to "Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference?" . Answer to the said point is in 'Negative' for the following reasons:

¶41

In the peculiar facts of the present case, the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that the respondent as well as one Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao were appointed as First Division Assistants vide the same order on the same day i.e., on 11.3.1977. The respondent got promotion

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34796-DB WP No. 4316 of 2020

¶43

earlier to the said Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao, whereas Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao continued in the cadre of First Division Assistant and availed the benefit of time bound as well as automatic grant of senior scale of pay and by virtue of those benefits he was drawing higher pay than the respondent. Subsequently, he was promoted to the cadre of Senior Auditor, to which the respondent was promoted on 31.1.1985. As the said Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao had got the benefit of time bound as well as senior scale pay, he was drawing more pay than the respondent. At the request of respondent, his pay was stepped up by order dated 03.7.1995. Subsequently, under impugned order, the request of the respondent was considered for stepping up of his pay in the cadre of Senior Auditor to that of Sri. S.Ramachandra Rao and was granted under column No.2 but under column No.11 in terms of Rule-7A(2) of 1994 Rules, the benefit granted to the respondent was withdrawn. In terms of Rule-7A(2), the respondent would be entitled for the benefit, it is not that he should have exercised his option. To exercise option, he had no such opportunity since he was promoted before he completed 10 or 15 years of continuous service in the cadre of First Division Assistant. Therefore, the contention of

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:34796-DB WP No. 4316 of 2020

¶46

learned AGA that he has not exercised his option under Rule7A(2) of 1994 Rules, is not applicable has no basis.

¶47

The Tribunal has rightly observed in its order as

¶48

follows:

¶49

"When once the applicant's pay was fixed granting him TBA and Senior Scale of Pay in the promoted cadre, the respondents are not right in re-fixing his pay, withdrawing the benefit of stepping up of pay given to him earlier, by misinterpreting the word "ignoring" found in Rule 7A(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Time Bound Advancement) Rules, 1983. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for applicant, the word "ignoring" found in Rule 7A(2) of the abovesaid rules has to be understood in the manner that by ignoring the stepping up of pay granted to the applicant equating his pay with that of his junior Ramachandra Rao, his pay shall be fixed in the promoted cadre. Rule 7A(2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Time Bound Advancement) Rules, 1983, is relevant and the same is extracted hereinbelow:

¶50

"7A: Stepping up of pay of Senior Government Servant:-

¶51

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:34796-DB WP No. 4316 of 2020

¶52

(2) If a Government servant has availed

¶53

the benefit of stepping up of pay under this rule, while granting him the senior scale of pay either in the same or subsequent cadre his pay shall be fixed in the senior scale of pay by ignoring the benefit of such stepping up of pay."

¶54