STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. T.R.MANJUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Government and its officials are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal's order dtd. 22/6/2023 whereby, the private respondent's Application No.3896/2022 having been favoured, a direction has been issued to the petitioners to pay him the arrears of salary in the Pay Scale admissible to the post which he held w.e.f. 2009 on placement by way of independent charge under Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules. The Tribunal has also directed payment of interest on the delayed disbursal of arrears of salary and levied a cost of Rs.2,500.00.

(2.) Learned HGCP appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that the Tribunal has grossly erred in granting relief of the kind inasmuch as it was only a retrospective promotion and during the period of retrospectivity when the civil servant had held the post in question on independent charge, he has already received the charge allowance. She also seeks to falter levy of cost and interest for the delayed payment of arrears of salary. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent justifies order of the Tribunal making submission in support of the reasoning on which it has been constructed. He banks upon the decision of Apex Court in STATE OF GUJARAT VS. HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT,AIR 1998 SC 3164. a Single Judge's order in G.M.POOVAYYA vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasons which the Tribunal has assigned in the impugned order. When a person is placed in a post on independent charge basis under Rule 32 of KCSR, it is not a case of promotion, is well established vide M.MARIDEV vs. STATE OF MYSORE,1968(1)MyLJ 325. However, where such a person is placed merely in independent charge though he was entitled to be promoted to the said post and subsequently he has been accorded retrospective promotion as contradistinguished from notional promotion, he cannot be denied the arrears of salary in the pay scale admissible to the said post. This view accords with doctrine against begar enacted in Article 23 of the Constitution of India. H.M.Seervai,[Constitutional Law of India, 4th edition, volume 2.] a jurist of yester decades explains 'begar', as under: