The State Of Karnataka vs Smt Jyostna A Naik
2022 Latest Caselaw 1359 Kant

                             1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

            WRIT PETITION NO.9298/2020 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
       M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

2.     THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,
       UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR-581301.

3.     THE TAHSILDAR,
       TALUK KUMTA,
       UTTARA KANNADA, KUMTA-581343.

4.     THE TAHASILDAR,
       HONNAVARA,
       UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581343.

5.     THE TAHSILDAR,
       KARWAR TALUK,
       UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581301.

6.     THE TAHASILDAR
       SIRSI TALUK, SIRSI,
       UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
                                            ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI VENKATSATHYANARAYANA A, HCGP.)
                             2


AND:

1.     SMT. JYOSTNA A.NAIK
       64 YEARS,
       VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
       AT AND PO TALUK KUMTA,
       DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA-581343.

2.     SRI LAKSHMAN R.NAIK
       66 YEARS,
       VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
       AT AND PO BINAGA,
       TALUK HONNAVARA,
       DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA-581343.

3.     SRI TULSIDAS V.MAHAJAN,
       63 YEARS,
       VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
       AT AND PO BINAGA, TALUK KARWAR,
       DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

4.     SRI GANAPATI M HEGDE
       62 YEARS,
       VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
       AT C.M.C. 34, PUSHPAK,
       GADDEMANE STREET, T.S.S. ROAD,
       PO NEW MARKET YARD, TALUK SIRSI,
       DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA-581401.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI LAXMESH P.MUTAGUPPE, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4.)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 17.08.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA     ADMINISTRATIVE    TRIBUNAL,   BENGALURU    IN
APPLICATION NOS.5304/2014 CONNECTED WITH 5481, 5349
AND 5391/2014 VIDE ANNX-A ETC.
                               3


     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                           ORDER

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader and

the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondents were

employed as village accountants of various villages and that

initially they were appointed as stipendiary graduates and

subsequently came to be absorbed in Government service

of the Uttara Kannada district in supernumerary post w.e.f.

01.09.1991. That they were initially posted in Dharwad

district and that thereafter they were regularly posted in

Dharwad district and thereafter they were retransferred to

Uttara Kannada district and they were again retransferred

to Dharwad district and again back to Uttara Kannada

district. That there is no dispute with regard to the fact that

they came to be absorbed in a supernumerary post w.e.f.

01.09.1991. The learned HCGP would contend that the

tribunal has erred in directing the State to grant them the

time bound promotion.

3. In our opinion that the said contention is

misplaced. On a perusal of the order impugned, we see

that the tribunal has merely directed that the case of the

respondents be considered in the light of the observation

made by it, which in turn is based on the observations of

the Apex Court rendered in Dwijen Chandra Shekar and

others vs. Union of India and others reported in (1999)

2 SCC 119. Additionally reliance is also placed on the

judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Union of India

and others vs. V Mathivanan reported in AIR 2006 SC

2326.

4. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that

the petitioners who were initially appointed as stipendiary

graduates came to be absorbed in government service, that

too in supernumerary posts and thereafter they have been

transferred to regular posts. The fact also remain that they

have been discharging duties in the regular posts and in all

probabilities the respondents have already retired or

superannuated from services.

5. Be that as it may, though the learned High Court

Government Pleader would make a strenuous attempt to

canvass a case that there could not have been a direction

by the tribunal to grant promotion, we find that there is no

such direction, rather the direction or relief granted by the

tribunal is limited to a direction to the respondent-State to

consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the

observations of the Apex Court rendered in Dwijen Chandra

Shekar's case as well as orders passed by it in application

No.286/2011 and 288/11 disposed of on 28.1.2014.

6. In so far as the directions to pay all the arrears

within three months, it is but consequential, in the event of

the respondents being declared as being eligible for time

bound promotion. The tribunal has not directed or

quantified as to what is the service rendered by the

respondents herein. The fact that the respondents having

been appointed to permanent posts and discharging duties

in the said posts is not denied. Further it is also not in

dispute that the rules also provide for extension of time

bound promotions scheme to the Government servants who

have completed a particular period of service.

7. In the instant case though a plea is taken that

they have been in service from 1991 and which plea is not

specifically denied, yet the fact remains that it is an

exercise and that has to be gone into and carried out by the

competent authority and identify as to whether they are

appointed against permanent posts and where there is an

order of absorption. Thirdly, if it is found that the

respondents have been appointed against regular posts or

supernumerary posts, it is for the competent authority to

calculate the correctness of the claims i.e., with regard to

the date of employment and the number of years of service

put in by them after due enquiry. In that view of the

matter, we do not find anything prejudicial in the order

impugned. The petitioner shall endeavour to complete the

exercise within four months from today. Accordingly, the

petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ykl CT-HR