C. CHANNE GOWDA S/O LATE CHANNARASE GOWDA AND SMT. K.V. SARASWATHI W/O LATE A. SREEPADA RAO, BOTH WORKING AS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Vs. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the Petitioners had joined the services of the Respondent as Stenographers and were promoted as judgment Writers with effect from 6.11.1987. The first Petitioner was promoted as a Court Officer by a Notification dated 5.10.1990 and the second Petitioner was promoted as a Court Officer by a notification dated 11.10.1990. By a Notification elated 18.11.2000, the Petitioners were granted the benefit of selection time scale of pay as per the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Time Bound Advancement) Rules. 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Rules ' for brevity)' with effect from the date on which each of the Petitioners completed ten years of service in the cadre of Court Officer from 6.10.2000 and 11.10.2000, respectively and were given pay fixation in the pay scale ofRs. 6300 -11840. The Petitioners were due for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrar. By a notification dated 5.9.2003, promotions were made by the Respondent to the cadre of Assistant Registrar and two other persons were promoted, namely, one Shri Narasa Reddy and another Shri V. Vijayaprabhakara, who were said to be juniors to the Petitioners. Therefore, the Petitioners being aggrieved by such promotions had preferred writ petitions in WP 45490 -91/2003, which were disposed of by an order dated 10.9.2004 allowing the petitions and setting aside the promotions impugned. The Respondent was directed to consider the case of the Petitioners for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrars with effect from the date their juniors were promoted and if they were found fit for promotion, to grail them all consequential benefits. Accordingly, by a notification dated 12.5.2005, the Respondent promoted the Petitioners. The first Petitioner was placed below one Shri Devaraju and was granted promotion from 2.9.2003 with retrospective effect. The second Petitioner was granted promotion from 1.9.2004 with retrospective promotion. The Petitioners thereafter made representations to promote both o

(3.) THE learned Senior Advocate would point out that the opinion expressed in the memo dated 26.5.2005 at Annexure -F to the effect that the option to remain in the scale of pay of the lower post could be exercised only if the officials are due to get increment within the immediate future from the date of promotion. The learned Senior Advocate would point out that the option could be exercised alter the expiry of ten years without any promotion being granted and before the promotion after fifteen years and therefore if promotion is to be granted on the 12th, 13th or 14th year, such option being exercised is contemplated under the Rules. This is what has been exercised by the Petitioners and therefore, he would submit that the petition be allowed.