C.L. TIGADI Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DPAR (SERVICE RULES), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED SHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has called in question the endorsement dated 28.10.2010 issued by respondent No.2 rejecting his request for grant of three annual increments in recognition of his previous services in Indian Army. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government, in a similarly placed circumstance, by order dated 30th April 2008, has extended the benefit of three additional increments to those persons, who have joined civil services, after having served the Indian armed forces. However, the said benefit has not been extended to the petitioner herein.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner is not entitled for additional three increments as he had taken voluntary retirement on 31.05.2003. Further, there is no provision for grant of additional increments on the ground that a person had earlier served Indian armed forces. However, after securing the original records, the learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the petitioner was not appointed under the quota of Ex -serviceman. Further, the said benefit of additional increments is applicable only to persons who worked as Combat and Clerk in Armed Forces. The petitioner, who has served as a Nayak in Indian Army is not entitled to the said benefit. The Government orders produced at Annexure Rs. BRs. dated 22nd July 1978 and Annexure Rs. HRs. dated 30th April 2008 show that similarly placed ex -servicemen, who have joined civil Services after serving Indian Armed Forces, have been given three additional increments in honour and recognition of their services to the Indian armed forces. If that is so, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the request of the petitioner is considered in the light of the Government orders referred to above. If the benefit of additional increments is extended to persons similarly placed as that of the petitioner, there is no reason to deny the said benefit to the petitioner.