I RUDRAYYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 1-9-2004 bearing No. 128 PMC 2004, vide An-nexure-A and further sought a direction directing the respondent to extend five stagnation increment benefits to the petitioners from. 1-4-1996 instead of from 25-6-1998, presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case is that earlier the petitioners herein have filed a writ petition No. 5377-97/2004, and the same had come up for consideration before this Court on 31-3-2004 wherein this Court had permitted that petitioners to file an appropriate representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and directed the respondent - Government to consider the same in accordance with law and also in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1990 SC 968 as expeditiously as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the representation. After disposal of the writ petition as referred above, the first petitioner himself and on behalf of other petitioners submitted a representation vide Annexure-T to the respondent. In the light of the direction issued by this Court and the representation submitted by these petitioners, the respondent herein has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-A rejecting the request of the petitioners for extending five stagnation increment benefits to the petitioners from 1-4-1996. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondent, the petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State.