IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.13171 OF 2014 [S-KAT] BETWEEN:
1. THE CONTROLLER OF STATE ACCOUNTS, 6TH FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. … PETITIONERS [BY SRI. I.THARANATH POOJARY, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE] AND:
JAMBANAGOUD, S/O. LINGANAGOUD, AGED ABUT 56 YEARS, FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ (ENGINEERING) DIVISION, GULBARGA-585 101. … RESPONDENT [SERVED UNREPRESENTED] * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2013 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.9284 OF 2005 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY MOHAMMAD NAWAZ J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short ‘Tribunal’], wherein it allowed the Application No.9284/2005 filed by the respondent herein and quashed the endorsement bearing No.RaaLePa 13 SiPraNi 2003, dated 31.08.2004, issued by the 1st petitioner herein and further directed to consider the request of the respondent herein for grant of additional increment and for consequential benefits and to pass appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
2. We have heard Sri. I.Tharanath Poojary, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners.
3. The respondent joined the duty in the Department of Employment and Training on 17.09.1971 as First Division Assistant [for short ‘FDA’]. He was deputed to the Department of State Accounts in the same cadre and joined the duty on 31.12.1990. He was permanently absorbed in the said department with effect from 31.12.1990 subject to the condition that he will be placed below the junior most FDA in the said department as on 31.12.1990 and that his previous service will count for pay, leave and pension only. Since the respondent had continued in the post of FDA for more than 20 years without any promotion, he made a representation requesting to grant one additional increment as admissible according to the Government Order dated 09.05.2002. However, the said claim was rejected by an endorsement dated 31.08.2004 issued by the 1st petitioner. The respondent challenged the aforesaid endorsement by filing Application No.9248 of 2005 before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed and the same is challenged herein.
4. The contention of the petitioners are that the service rendered in the previous department for grant of additional increment cannot be taken into account. The scheme of grant of additional increment was introduced with a view to provide some relief to those who were otherwise eligible for promotion but, stagnated in the same post held by them for a long period without promotion and since the respondent was initially appointed in the Department of Employment and Training and therefore, he will lose his seniority in the absorbed department. It is the further contention that, the service which does not count for the purpose of seniority for promotion has to be excluded while computing the period prescribed for grant of additional increment.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent has been working as FDA and continued in the same post for more than 20 years without any promotion. The respondent was deputed to the State Accounts Department and he was permanently absorbed in the said department. The Tribunal after considering that in identical case and in almost similar circumstance, it was held that, so far as the applicants who have been transferred from one unit to other is concerned, the length of service rendered in one unit would certainly be hacked on the service in the transferred unit and also relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1999)2 SCC 119 in the case of DWIJEN CHANDRA SARKAR AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS; has rightly held that the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the earlier service rendered in the Department of Employment and Training cannot be taken into consideration while counting the total service as FDA for granting the benefit under the Government Order dated 09.05.2002, cannot be accepted.
6. By virtue of the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed to reconsider the request of the respondent herein for grant of additional increment and for consequential benefit and thereafter to pass appropriate order. We find no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE Ksm*