® IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY WRIT PETITION No.21695 OF 2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
SMT.B.J.ANASUYA DEVI, D/O SRI B.JAGANATH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RETIRED HEAD ACCOUNTANT, O/o RURAL DISTRICT TREASURY, BENGALURU, RESIDING AT No.322, L.I.G. 1ST STAGE, KHB COLONY, 6TH MAIN ROAD, BASAVESHWARNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
…PETITIONER 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURIES, DR.AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, V.B.TOWER, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHILPA S. GOGI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.01.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No.2916/2011, SET ASIDE AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, NATARAJ RANGASWAMY J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner in this writ petition had filed Application No.2916/2011 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, seeking Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.Kh.Ni/Sibbandi(5)/CR-70/07-08 dated 16.08.2007 issued by respondent No.2 and for a Writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to undertake review of promotions to the cadre of Assistant Treasury Officers pursuant to the final seniority list of Assistant Treasury Officers published vide Official Memorandum No.Aa.E.229.aa.KH.E.04(1) dated 14.02.2006 issued by respondent No.1.
2. The Application was rejected by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), Bengaluru, in terms of the Order dated 23.01.2018. The petitioner filed Review Application No.13/2018 before the Tribunal to review its earlier order dated 23.01.2018. The Review Application was rejected by the Tribunal in terms of the order dated 16.03.2018. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present Writ petition challenging not only the Order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.2916/2011, but also the Order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal in Review Application No.13/2018 and for a direction to the respondent to grant all consequential benefits, arrears of salary and pension that the petitioner would be entitled to on notionally promoting her to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer with retrospective effect from the date her junior, Smt. Jorammanavar, was promoted i.e., on 31.05.1995.
3. The facts necessary for determining this Writ Petition are as follows:
The petitioner joined service under the State as a Second Division Clerk in the Department of Treasuries on 03.07.1961 and was promoted as First Division Assistant on 09.11.1968 and as Deputy Accountant on 18.10.1982 and later, she was promoted as Head Accountant on 01.06.1985 and she attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.05.1998. It is found from the Cadre and Recruitment Rules that the post of Assistant Treasury Officer is to be filled from the cadre of Head Accountant by promotion and by direct recruitment in the ratio of 75:25. The final gradation list of Head Accountants was published by respondent No.1 on 26.10.1994, wherein the name of the petitioner was found at Sl. No.428 and the name of Smt. Jorammanavar, who is junior to the petitioner was at Sl. No.435. However, their respective date of eligibility is 18.10.1982.
4. In terms of the notification dated 20th August 2001, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, the following provision was deemed to have been inserted in the end of column (4) of the schedule to the Karnataka General Service (Treasury Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1994, i.e., in the entries relating to the category of post of Assistant Treasury Officer with effect from 16th November 1985.
“Provided that all the direct recruitment vacancies existing on Sixteenth day of November, 1985 and arising thereafter and existing on Twenty-fourth day of September 1997, except the vacancies filled by direct recruitment made in Notification No.FD.63.ATE.91 dated 25-07-1991 and FD.295.AaBhaEo 96 dated 24-03-97 shall be filled by promotion from the cadre of Head Accountant.”
5. Following the above, the petitioner seems to have filed a representation dated 14.02.2005 informing the Director, Department of Treasuries that though there were several vacant posts, yet she was not promoted and therefore, requested that her eligibility date for promotion be declared so that she could claim pension.
6. Following this, the Finance Department of the Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 14.02.2006 notifying the final seniority list as between 01.01.1985 and 01.01.2005. In Appendix II to the said notification, names of those officers, who were not eligible as on 01.01.2005 to the post of Assistant Treasury Officer were also mentioned. The details of posts of Assistant Treasury Officer that arose between 01.01.1985 to 01.01.2005 was also notified in Appendix III to the said notification.
7. In view of the final seniority list being notified, the representation of the petitioner dated 14.02.2005 was rejected in terms of the endorsement dated 16.08.2007 holding that the petitioner was not entitled for consideration for promotion from the retrospective date more so when no other junior officer was promoted during the tenure of service of the petitioner. The petitioner being dissatisfied by the endorsement dated 16.08.2007, submitted another representation dated 21.08.2008 claiming that there were 68 unfilled posts, as on 01.05.1998 and that if 12 posts were filled as on 01.05.1998, or if the date of eligibility for promotion was declared, then the petitioner would have been entitled to be considered for promotion. She, therefore, requested for retrospective promotion and / or for declaration of her eligibility and for review of the promotion as notified by the respondent in terms of the notification dated 14.02.2006.
8. A notice dated 21.12.2010 was issued on behalf of the petitioner to the respondent No.1 herein seeking review of promotions to the cadre of Assistant Treasury Officers. This notice was forwarded by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 on 10.01.2011 for appropriate action. The petitioner had also submitted a representation dated 21.02.2011 enclosing therewith the notice dated 21.12.2010 for review of promotion. The request of the petitioner was again rejected in terms of a letter dated 21.03.2011 (Annexure A10 to the petition).
9. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Application No.2916/2011 challenging the endorsement dated 16.08.2007 and also sought review of promotion to the cadre of Assistant Treasury Officers pursuant to the final seniority list dated 14.01.2006 issued by the respondent No.1. The Tribunal rejected the application on two grounds, firstly, that before the date of retirement of the petitioner, none of the juniors of the petitioner were promoted and secondly, no Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted prior to the retirement of the petitioner. This order was sought to be reviewed unsuccessfully at the hands of the Tribunal. The petitioner is now before this Court seeking for review of the promotion and / or declaration of eligibility.
10. This Writ petition at the outset is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches since the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.1998 and admittedly, there was no Departmental Promotion Committee constituted. Final seniority list was published on 14.02.2006. The petitioner did not choose to file any objections to the draft seniority list, but waited for more than two years and thereafter, approached the Tribunal in the year 2011. The Tribunal has disposed of the case in the year 2018 and therefore, much water has now flown down the bridge and it is now improper to tinker with the final seniority list and / or declare the date of eligibility of the petitioner for promotion.
11. Even otherwise, request for promotion with retrospective effect by a Civil servant can be granted only under circumstances contained under Section 3 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973. However, in the present case, the petitioner does not qualify for retrospective promotion as she retired on 31.05.1998 and none of her juniors were promoted. Therefore, her request was rightly rejected by the respondents and the Tribunal. We find no infirmity in the Orders impugned.
12. In view of the same, this writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE sma