THE COMMISSIONER Vs. K.G. SHANKARA NARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order dated 3.1.2010 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application Nos. 2442-45/2002, a direction is issued against the petitioners to give all consequential benefits in favour of the respondents as per its earlier order dated 24.4.1997 in Application No. 1636-39/1999. The records reveal that, while the respondents were working as Headmasters (Group B posts), they were promoted to the posts of Group A (Junior Class I cadre) on 30.9.1993. Such promotions of the respondents were made in the vacancies which were required to be filled by 25% direct recruitment as on that date; since the direct recruitment could not take place for a long period and as the Government was of the opinion that it may take some more time to fill up such posts by way of direct recruitment, the respondents who were eligible to be appointed to the Group A Junior Class I Posts in all respects, were promoted to the said posts w.e.f. 30.9.1993. Such promotions were made as per the then existing Rule 17(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. The respondents worked as Junior Class I Officers from 30.9.1993 till they attained the age of superannuation i.e. for about 2-3 years. Though the petitioners extracted the work of Junior Class I Officers from the respondents from 30.9.1993 till the date of their respective retirement and though the respondents worked as Junior Class I Officers from 30.9.1993 till the date of their retirement satisfactorily, they were not paid salary attached to the posts of Junior Class I Officers from 30.9.1993 till their retirement. Thus, the respondents approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by filing Application Nos. 2442-45/2002 which came to be allowed by the impugned order.

(2.) Sri. Bajentri, learned Government Advocate submits that the appointments of the respondents to the posts of Junior Class I Officers came to be withdrawn on 26.9.1998 in view of filling up of 25% posts by direct recruitment and therefore, the respondents are not entitled for pay attached to Junior Class I Posts.

(3.) Sri. Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the order of the Court below by relying on Rule 17(c), the then existing Rule.