IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.43773 OF 2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN SHRI SURESH S/O THUKRA KOTIAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A SRIDURGA, PUNCHIKADU NEAR PALLIGUDDA,POST KATAPDY UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 576232.
(BY SRI SHRIHARI K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DPAR (SERVICE RULES) VIDHANA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 2. THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560001 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CLARIFY REGARDING THE ENTITLEMENT OF PETITIONER FOR ADDITIOINAL INCREMENT AS PER GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD 03.11.2000 WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH ANDMARKED AS ANNX-A AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE CIRCULAR PASSED BY R-2 DTD 05.03.2003 WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNX-B, QUASH THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DTD 28.11.2002 PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNX-D, QUASH THE LETTER DTD 15.11.2012 PRODUCED AT ANNX-H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner joined the services as process server and he is now working as bailiff. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is 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 the 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 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 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 the petitioner has not given the representation to the competent authority through the proper channel.
6. 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 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 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.
KLY/ SD/- JUDGE