IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.55334/2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN SRI. NANDEESH G SAGAR S/O GANGANATH SHREE SHANKAR, AGED 62 YEARS, RETIRED AT NALANDA JUNIOR COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCE, JAGALUR, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, R/O 2ND CROSS, RANGANATH BADAVANE, JAGALUR, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT- 572057. (BY SRI. MARUTHI G. B., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY (II), DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF P.U. EDUCATION 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE- 560016.
... PETITIONER 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR PRE UNIVERSITY, ROOM NO. 47, ZILLA ADALITHA BHAVAN, DAVANAGERE- 572057.
(BY SMT. T. S. PRATHIMA, AGA) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE FURTHER EFFECTIVE STEPS PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO. 47316/2014, WHICH IS MARKED AS ANENXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was working as Librarian in a private aided college - Naland Junior College of Arts and Science, Jagaluru, Davanagere District and he retired in the same college on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was denied one additional increment which he was 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 petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled to one additional increment in terms of Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules and the same is fortified by a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.47316/2014, which was decided on 03.11.2014.
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, in Writ Petition No.41542/2003, which was decided on 08.11.2010. In the said matter, similar to the case on hand, the petitioner 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 petitioner was 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 1974 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 the petitioner 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 petitioner under Rule 6 of the 1974 Rules was held to be fully justified.
5. In the light of the above, the petitioner is 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 the case of Jayanna and others Vs. High Court of Karnataka and another (supra). The respondents are directed to calculate and pay the petitioner one additional increment in terms of his 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 petitioner shall be released to him within a period of three months from the date of representation made by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
SD/- JUDGE DL