IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOs.44473-44474 OF 2012(S-RES) Between:
1. Sri. Guruvaiah S/o late Kunnaiah .B Aged about 68 years, Retd. SDA, Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn), Nagamangala, Mandya District.
2. Sri. C.Chamundaiah S/o late Chowdaiah, Aged about 63 years, Retd. FDA, Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn), Srirangapatna, Mandya District. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Aravind Upadhya, Advocate for Sri. P.N. Nanja Reddy, Advocate) And:
1. High Court of Karnataka Represented by its Registrar General, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mandya District, Mandya – 571 401. ... Respondents (By Sri. Kiran Kumar T.L, AGA) 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. No.41542/2003 dated 08.11.2010 and grant all the consequential benefits vide Annexure-D.
These petitions coming on for Final Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners have joined the service as process server. While the first petitioner was appointed on 10.01.1973, the second petitioner was appointed on 11.10.1971. The petitioners were promoted as Second Division Assistant in the year 1998 and 1980 respectively. Both the petitioners have retired from the service. But the grievance of the petitioners is common, in as much as they were denied one additional increment which they were entitled to, having passed Kannada Language Examination as required under the Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examinations) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1974 Rules’ for short).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled to one additional increment in terms of Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules and the same is fortified by a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.41542/2003, which was decided on 08.11.2010.
3. The very same question fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jayanna and others Vs. High Court of Karnataka and another (supra). In the said matter, similar to the case on hand, the petitioners had indeed passed or deemed to have passed the Kannada Language Examination prescribed under the 1974 Rules, for entitlement of one increment under Rule 6 thereof. The only question that arose for consideration was whether having acquired the aforesaid qualification, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the said increment.
4. Relying on the Rules 3 and 6 of the 1974 Rules, it was held that both in Rule 3(1) as also Rule 6 of the 974 Rules, the term ‘prescribed qualification’ has been qualified with the words ‘if any’, as such, in the absence of any prescribed qualification, it would not be essential for an employee to pass any such examination before he becomes entitled to the additional increment contemplated under Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules. It was therefore held that if there is no prescribed examination for any post in the service of the Government, an employee would be entitled to an additional increment, merely for having passed the Kannada Language Examination. Since all the petitioners therein had admittedly passed or deemed to have passed, the Kannada Language Examination stipulated under the 1974 Rules, for entitlement to the aforesaid increment, the claim of the petitioners under Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules was held to be fully justified.
5. However, in the instant case, the learned AGA submits that both the petitioners have not given the representations to the competent authority through the proper channel.
6. In the light of the above, the petitioners are permitted to make a representation to the competent authority and respondents are directed to consider such representation and pass orders in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.41542/2003, which was disposed of on 08.11.2010. Respondents are directed to calculate and pay the petitioners one additional increment in terms of their entitlement under Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules, for the duration the same was available to the employees under the 1974 Rules. Payments due to the petitioners shall be released to them within a period of three months from the date of representation made by the petitioners.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.
SD/- JUDGE MBM