IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE lst DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 ERESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUN§THTfLf%JW AND 4_ THE HON'BLE MRs.JUSTICE E v.NAsAREiaEa ¢V_T warm PETITION NO.13332 or 2Qést$¥KEm} 3_=;7 BETWEEN 1 SRI I B EMMI s/0 BASAPPA EM; A AGED ABOUT 67'HEARs_ av _Tm . R/A No.7, ITI COLONY ROADf»}," HOSAPALYA, MADIVALA Po$T" "' BANGALoE-58. ' " ."4e E _.--.__g -------- 4;. 2.; PETITIONER (By Sri= .RA"N.-A'.1TARAJzfi9V . E: AND 1 EEE INSEECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ~E.s;R,p.,*mgppATEUNGA ROAD ..,_ '~BAEEALQRE 1 1=T2g iHEvpiEE¢EoR GENERAL OF POLICE ."KARNAEAKA STATE 'aN3gPAEHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE 1 2VA3TFTHfi HOME SECRETARY T=_VIDHANA SOUDHA,BANGALORE 560001 T".,_é THE COMANDANT 1ST EATTALION, é?" ' "'2 1 V. S 9*: '7 .. , ,. Y») KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE NO.60, RICHMOND ROAD BANGALORE 25 RESPONDENTS (By Sri:R.B.VENKATA RAMAN,HCGP FOR R1-4 ) THIS W.P.IS FILED UNDER. ARTICLE 227, or TI-IE CONSTITUTION or INDIA PRAYING To »"~fi's§:T-4.. ASIDE THE ORDER DT. 18.8.2008 VIDE DIRECT 'I'I-IE RESPONDENTS To REFIX TI-IE PAY .051 PETITIONER AFTER GRANTING SELECTION*"'T--I§'v1E"SVCALIE:__ OF PAY W.E.F. 12.4.1977. i ". THIS PETITION COMING of; For; oRpI:Rs, DAY, MANJUNATI-I J, MADE VTHI; FOLIf<f)'WING;:"" ORDER
The short question; that varises for our
consideratioh.in this Writ Petition is whether
the petitioner is entitied for fixation of his
pay in_seieotion tide scale with effect from
“q~2; zitf is not in dispute that the
petitioner had joined as a Police constable on
dӢ:12,4.i95S and he retired from the service
4″ after attaining the age of superannuation on
dhw’m30fi’ April 1999 as Special Reserve Sub-
Inspector. According to him, in the normal
course he would have been entitled __for
selection time scale of pay with effect”..::if<ror;1
21.5.1977 but the same has not been
by the respondent and thet..__select'io}:
scale of pay was not given
that his case has not._V"1:;een"'consi.;1e'red,. he * V
approached the KarnAa.taA'ka"'–~_,y Admin_isAtErative
Tribunal, Banga'1ore"~ yhpplication
No.2603/2000,_:V' ' has been
rejected §.on"' The Tribunal
has rejected the application of the petitioner
on the cjrojuaandl Vfigule 9 has no application
.-»__to_~E'.he__i"fact:s'=a_nd. circumstances of the case
since ».he'~.h'as_ been given benefit of revised
ti:-rie'*'scalpjeifand that he is not entitled for
'.pse1e'ci;ionV<tix::e scale of pay as on 1.4.1977,
it by then the said benefit had been
withdrawn by the Government. Challenging the
same, the present petition is filed.
B2'
£5'
3. We have heard Mr.Nataraj, learned
counsel appearing for the petitionerV and”
Government Advocate for the respondents._fiid=”
4. The main contention of the petitioner-‘
is that the Tribunal has r;ot.iapp:-ma
properly and on i.account.2’_of;€fl”wrong
interpretation of Rnle 9, the petitioner case
has been prejudiced yandi his erelief is not
granted. “W i i i i
5. Thereforeg whet is to be considered by
us, in this writ Petition is that whether he
is entitied for fisation of pay in selection
time scale with”effect from 21.5.1977.
&im6;_itmis,not in dispute that Rule 9 can
bejapplied go a person whose pay of scale has
[not heen fixed based on the revised pay scale.
‘.When%_once revision of pay scale has been
* granted to a person, in such an event, Rule 9
dxcannot be made applicable. Since, it is not
5″.
the case of the appellant, revision of pey
scale has not been given, we cannot cons’i:’1:e;’~».u
the grievance of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petition’ .-i.s”‘£éjéfcr.’éd.’;_AVV