STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. P M BHASKARA GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the State of Karnataka there existed several hereditary village offices, namely, Patel, Patwari and Gramsahayaks prior to 1961. In the year 1961, the Karnataka Legislature passed an Act known as Karnataka Village Officer's Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in terms whereof all the herediary offices at village level were abolished. However, the holders of such offices were allowed to continue on ad hoc basis on compassionate ground. Subsequently a circular was issued providing for compassionate appointment of children of Gramsahayaks who hold earlier hereditary offices on November 1, 1991 and died in harness.

(2.) It appears that the respondents herein were appointed as Gram Sahayaks in pursuance of the Government Order permitting the hereditary offices to continue on ad hoc basis. It is not disputed that respondents were appointed as Sahayak Lekhpal between 1979 to 1983. Alleged on the ground that what were paid to them as salary was very meagre; they filed an original application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore praying therein to pay unto them salary which was being paid to other Group D employees and further to regularise their services as Group D employees with all consequential benefits. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by order dated December 5, 1996 partly allowed the said petition directing to State of Karnataka, the appellant herein, to pay a sum of Rs. 900 per month till the appellant came out with proper scheme laying down the conditions of service of the Gramsahayaks. It is against the said judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before us by means of this special leave petition.

(3.) Shri P. P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, urged that since the respondents herein were appointed being the children of holders of hereditary office on ad hoc basis, the Tribunal committed an error in directing the appellant to frame recruitment rules for them. We find substance in the argument.