_ 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.G.SAB1-IAHITH
AND
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATm~i_A
WRIT PETITION No.3o42:§/26:03.' (S--KATj.'-- " _
BETWEEN:
LTHE STATE OF' KARNATAKA,"=, "
BY ITS SECRETARY To GOVT,
HEALTH & FAMILY
M.S.BLDG., " _ V. '
BANGALORE -- 560 001. '
2.TBE L)IR7E."CTO1"{'OA'FT£jIE3ALTH -
AND FAMILY WELB'AR_E"S_ERX?*ICES,
ANANDA RAG CIRCLE, ~ A
BANGALORE; 5 '560:00E_
' ' _3."I*E£I?2 $-E.',CRETARY"T0' GOVT,
,FINAI"JCETDE.PT.
' _ VIDBANA 'E..r)LI_
560 001. PETITIONERS
(BY'Bb;£T_sHEELA KRISHNA. GOVT. ADV.)
'HAND: " . ~~
A if ~ SR1 "M.BALAKR1sHNA REDDY.
'S/'O,LA'TE.l\/IUNIREDDY.
AGED ABOUT 4.9 YRS.
' .._EiRsT DIVISINO ASSISTANT.
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE SERVIC ES,
ANANDA RAG CIRCLE.
BANGALORE ---- 560 079. ...RESPONDENT
{BY SR1 B.B.BAJEi\lTRI, ADV.)
Ii€***$
THIS WRET PETITION IS FILED PRAYING
ASIDE THE ORDER DT.21/10/2002 BY
BANGALORE, IN APPLICATION N0.6495/ 1996
THIS PETITION COMING OAm:*.OR
DAY, SABHAI-HTJ., MADE THE FC)4LL(3′.Vl’NG.:.{
0 Raga
This writ petition is State, being
aggriepved” :3gg’j:::hé: ‘E1-der,jdate¢1*~- 1/ 10/2002 passed by
the Tribunal (hereinafter,
referred tollasxtllep Wlirherein, the application filed by
V’ ..their’esp0n’dpent an endorsement withdrawing the
upon the applicant for granting Time
I3ound Ad_V4a.ncement and Time Bound Promotion has
lgbeen quashed.
V. if The applicant was Working as a First Division
Assistant (hereinafter, referred to as the FDA’) in ‘the
Health and Family Welfare Services and he was working
as Basic Health Worker. However, he suffered medical
\\§::_.Aj,*(;.
n3_
disability and therefore, the benefit of Rule 41 was given
to him and he was reverted to the post of Second
Division Assistant (hereinafter, referred to as ‘SD_A’).
However, his salary was protected and it was
that he will be junior to the junionrriost in
SDA and having regard to the Rule”Wh_ic~.h
grant of Time Bound Advazncementhaind
Promotion, under Rule 83 an’d:”Rule 91,: W1′.iichv,’ret;uire
the applicant should.i1~a=ye 1T0._pand 99195 “years of
service respectively, in the i.e.. in the
instant.’tcase;».in_V of it was found that the
benefit to the appiicant was a
mistake and the been rectified by withdrawing
9. ”’the”said..,’benefit as VperAr1nexure ‘A~ 5’ dated 25/3 / 1996.
the same, an application was filed
before the challenging the validity of Rule 3(a) of
Karriataka Civil Services (Time Bound Advancement)
1983 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘1983 Rules’)
and Rule 4 [iii)(iv) of the Karnataka Civil Services
” (Automatic Grant of Speciai Promotion to Senior Scale of
Pay) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘1991
Rules’), prescribing the period of service in thesame
cadre.
3. The application was” ‘—resi_stedl”: -lfthxe;
respondent by contending that
period of 10 years and 15 1983 it
Rules and 1991 Ruleskwasalj’ustii’ie’d,._Aas benefit of
Time Bound Advancelrnentl Grant of
Special i3romotio.n:V:’to can be granted
to those 10 years and 15
years proinotion in the same cadre
and therefore,– at Annexure ‘A-5’ dated
25/3/96 jilustifieid and respondents were entitled to
‘ ””reCoVerij’t.he* _amoui?1t”li.e., paid by virtue of the earlier
-order’ «per Anriexure ‘A«~ 4’.
AA _ it The Tribunal after considering the
rpllleontelntion of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, held that the Validity of the rule need not be
quashed without following the judgment of the Honble
Supreme Court in case of Dwijen Chandra Sarkar
and Another —vs.~ Union of India and Others [ (1.999)
2 Supreme Court Cases 119] wherein, it
held that the services rendered in the cadre H
Health Worker should also be in-cludedfl lpurposefi
of grant of Time Bound Advancement
Grant of Special Promoti’onj”-,and is
unnecessary to quash” the benefit in
view of the judgment oaflthe Court and
allowed the the order at
Annexure Vthe”tsame and it was
ordere(1Vllthat..:t7}ave liable to suffer any
recoverv’ipursuaifitttollPinnexure ‘A-5’. Being aggrieved
by the.,said4″4″or:der .501″ 7’the’$Tribuna1, this Writ petition is
‘S V. °fi1ped~h’y ithe respondenlt ~— State.
A. heard the learned Govt. Advocate
‘gappeaiting “for the petitioner ~– State and the learned
V’ llV~fjcdunsel appearing for the respondent and the reply
arguments.
6. Learned Govt. Advocate submitted that in the
instant case, since the applicant was suffering from
W5-
medical disability, in View of Rule 4l(a), since the
applicant could not perform his duties as Basic Health
Worker, he was reduced to the cadre of SDA on medical
grounds. However, the salary he was drawing
Health Worker was protected and unless
requisite years of service in the cadre of ‘SD;A._Ali”n_ View of;
Rule 3(a) of 1983 Rules and Rulea4__(iii}V(AiV) of_~l99l’~
the applicant ie, the respondent hereltn not
entitled to Time Bound Arltfaneenient Scale “and also
Time Bound Promotion Rules and
therefotreilly ‘has.VV.been”_”Vrectified under Annexure
‘A–5’, V but the Tribunal was not
justified in4′”upho.ldingf Rule and giving liberty to the
on thleivblasis of the decision of the Hon’ble
which is not at all applicable to the
facts of.t11e’4lpresent case.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
‘:f..resp.ond’ent vehemently argued that because of the
‘ riiedical disability, the applicant has been reverted from
post of Basic Health Worker to the cadre of SDA
and his pay scale has been protected and merely
\,<;;aXs
because he was reverted to the junior most in the cacire
of SDA, for the purpose of granting benefit under
Rules or 199}. Rules, it cannot be said that—he V'
entitled to count the service ren'd'ered of
Basic Health Worker, which is eq:u.iVai.ent
FDA and wherefore, the benefithandelr has it
been rightly granted rand l?;e'enn_:'vQrongfully"'*withdrawn
and therefore, the order Tribunal is
justified.
8. ‘l1a3g,e giy’en”-c*arefuvlf consideration to the
contentions urgetdxbyggthe’-learned counsel appearing for
the parties and slcrutiriiaegd the material on record.
g .lC9.%,.,.o<f['h'e,'materialon record would clearly show that
appointed as Basic Health Worker on
Thereafter, since he suffered medical
ll""«._'V"disabi1ityf in exercise of the powers under Article 41(a],
reverted to the post of SDA and the salary
which he was getting as Basic Health Worker was
protected. The Tribunal has held that it is unnecessary
to quash the conditions prescribed for granting the
benefit under 1983 Rules and 1991 Rules, prescribing
the requisite qualifying service for granting the
However, relief has been given only by V'
judgment of the Hon'b1e vlateig
decision reported in case of iiniisnl of" India "
Another –vs.~ V.N.Bhat [(209318 scc':71;i1""~i$;vhe£e-in, "
the Hon'ble Supreme Court –._'.["f1a'Ell;\?l\fVl"'1't":1'i"ltl"l€I'e is
a transfer from one department
on request, he should be
junior to thief the same would not
come iinflthe counting service in the
.-the said case the employee
had been transferred'*.in".the same cadre and it was a
'l"'vcas'e.. llof": tr–a._nsferllV"'from one department to another
i.q:lep;artr:rie.r1tMinistry of Defence to the Department
of Chief Master and transfer was in the same cadre
wherefore, the said decision was not at all helpful to
rt,he».applicant. In the present case. the Tribunal was not
jtistified in relying upon the said decision and when
l once it is held that the period prescribed has to be
rendered in the same cadre as per the above referred
W9"
Rules and admittedly, applicant had not put in 10 and
15 years of service as per 1983 Rules and 1991 Rules
and hence, the question of granting benefit under the
said Rules would not arise and the same hajsnbeen’
rectified as per Annexure ‘A6′ and therefore’;:’–theT’crd-er”:l ”
of the Tribunal setting aside Annexure it
sustained and the same is liaialeiv. to be ._set ..as:ide’V;’w.
However, the benefit was to” the and it
payment has been made thou’ghi:he”*.vas notiierititled to
the benefit under l983lRi.;11’es Since he
worked”in”t’l=i.ev5.saidV the said period and
since he-has attained”superannuation and also retired
from Vserviceon rncdicaiddisability, it is unnecessary to
.ll””recoveri..y’-sthe ..éamo1intlV paid as the benefit had been
” of the said benefit, the respondent
has’—..__vvorvkedj’.i’iAn the said post and having received the
“addpition.al benefit, he must have contributed additional
_ ‘»voi’3«:flaIso. it is therefore unnecessary to recover the
..a-inount which is already paid since he has attained
superannuation and has retired from service and was
medicaiiy disabled. Accordingly, the writ petitiqn is
disposed of.
'mus _ '