IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION NOs.17632-17633 OF 2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B. VEERAPPA S/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/AS BAILIFF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DVN) & J.M.F.C HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 2. SRI. M. BASAVANNA S/O LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RETD. BAILIFF CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DVN) K.R. NAGARA MYSORE DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA – 572 108 3. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE – 570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.C. KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE AND GRANT ONE ADDITIONAL INCREMENT IN TERMS OF RULE 6 OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES [SERVICE AND KANNADA LANGUAGE EXAMINATIONS] RULES 1974 FOR HAVING PASSED THE KANNADA LANGUAGE EXAMINATION IN TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN W.P.41542/2003 DATED 08.11.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND GRANT ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R According to the petitioners they passed / deemed to have passed Kannada language examination and as such they are entitled to one additional increment in terms of Rule 6 of Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada language examinations) Rules, 1974. Contending that they worked as Bailiffs and rendered service in the Trial Courts of Chitradurga District and Mysuru District, these petitions were filed asking for a mandamus against the respondents to extend the benefit of the Order dated 08.11.2010 passed in WP No.41542/2003 vide Annexure-G.
2. Heard learned advocates on both sides and perused the record.
3. In the order as at Annexure-G, it was held that if the person is eligible for the additional increment for the period from 10.01.1974 to 08.01.1987, the amount should be calculated and paid as additional increment in terms of the entitlement under Rule 6 i.e., for the duration the same was available to the employees under the 1974 Rules.
4. As it was submitted by Sri.P.N.Nanja Reddy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that the benefit for the period from 10.01.1974 to 08.01.1987 was not extended to the petitioners, without going to the merit of the claim, the petitions stand disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to examine the claim made by the petitioners for payment of the additional increment for the said period by keeping in view the judgment as at Annexure-G. While considering the claim, it is open to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to also examine whether the petitioners possess the eligibility for claiming the said additional increment and for what period.
In the result, writ petitions stand disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to notify the petitioners the outcome of the consideration in terms of the above within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioners before their respective appointing authority.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH