State of Karnataka and The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vs Smt. Umadevi and Others

B.S. Indrakala, J.—The State being aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore dated 10.1.2013 passed on Application Nos. 4720 to 4712/2012 wherein, the tribunal while allowing the application filed by the respondents directed the petitioners herein to count the seniority of the applicants/respondents from the date of their regularization i.e., the date as mentioned against their respective name in the Official Memorandum No. Sibbandi, 2D.CR-44/2006-07 dated 10.8.2006 and to refix the seniority accordingly in the cadre of second division assistants; to review the incharge arrangements made as per Annexure A14 therein and also to accord benefits to which the applicants are entitled, has preferred the above petition. It is contended by the respondents herein before the tribunal that in pursuance of the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (C.A. Nos. 3595-3612/1999 disposed of on 10.04.2006) and the Government Circular dated 25.5.2006, their posts were regularized from the dates mentioned against their names i.e., from the, next day of they completing 10 years of service from the date of their appointment vide Official Memorandum No. Sibandi/2D/CR-44/06-07 dated 10.8.6006, but, their seniority is not restored from the date of such regularization and on the other hand vide Official Memorandum No. Sibbandi-3C/CR-184/2006-07 Dated 10.9.2009 they are assigned ranking based on the date of the order of regularization viz., 10.8.2006. Hence, they sought inclusion of their names in the seniority list from the date of their regularization and to quash the communication bearing No. Sibbandi. 2D.CR. 01/2012-13 dated 21.4.2012. Further, it is contended by the respondents that under the said communication particulars of the second division assistants were called for, for the purpose of posting them under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules in independent charge of higher post of first division assistants. In the circumstances the respondents herein sought to consider their seniority from the date of regularization and for consequential relief of quashing the communication issued contrary to that.

The tribunal on considering the contentions of the applicants as well as the State, deemed it fit to quash Annexure-A14 therein/the communication dated 21.4.2012 wherein the particulars were called for to post applicants under Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules and also directed to fix the seniority of the applicants from the dates of their regularization.

Mrs. Susheela, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that such regularization of the respondents was carried out as one time measure only in pursuance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Umadevi''s case (supra) and as such if they are given seniority from the date of regularization i.e., with retrospective effect, the seniority of other officials who are already working will be affected prejudicial to their interest and in the circumstance, their seniority will have to be fixed only from the date of issuing notification of such regularization viz., 10.8.2006

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr. Ranganatha S. Jois contended that even as per The Karnataka Government Servants'' (Seniority) Rules, 1957, the seniority will have to be fixed from the date of regularizing and not from the date of notification.

Proviso to Rule 1-A of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 which applies to the case on hand reads as under:

1....

1.A. Nothing in these rules shall be applicable to any person appointed as a local candidate so long as he is treated as such:

Provided that where his appointment is treated as regularised from any date, his seniority in the service shall be determined in accordance with these rules as if he had been appointed regularly as per the rules of recruitment to the post held by him on that day.

(Emphasis supplied)

On perusal of the proviso as excerpted above, the seniority will have to be fixed from the day of their regularization i.e., from the date as mentioned against the respective name in the Official Memorandum and not from 10.8.2006. Hence, the impugned order dated 10.1.2013 passed in Application Nos. 4702 to 4712/2012 does not call for any interference. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, to facilitate the petitioners to carry out the directions issued by the tribunal, it is reasonable to grant some time and accordingly, the petitioners are directed to effect the seniority as per the Rules i.e., from the date on which the service of the respondents were regularized within three months from today.