T.MALLAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-A retired Civil Servant, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the State Administrative Tribunal's order dtd. 11/9/2023, whereby, his Application No.1173/2023 wherein he had sought for direction to pay the Stagnation Increment has been negatived.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the grant of Stagnation Increment is governed by a Government Order dtd. 18/3/1996; that being the facilitative order, cannot be held against the very grant itself by unusual construction of its provisions; his client was given promotion way back in the year 2013 ie., post punishment. He also notifies us the recommendation of the AG Office vide letter dtd. 3/10/2016.

(3.) Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for official respondents vehemently resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order of the Tribunal and the reasons on which it has been constructed. She emphatically reads out Clause 3 of the Government Order relating to stagnation increment and says that whatever constraint would operate while considering the case of a Civil Servant for promotion would apply to the consideration for the grant of stagnation increment; the finding by the Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner had been denied promotion on the ground that he was punished for delinquency by way of deduction from salary. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the petition.