R P LAMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the applicant in application No. 5202/2001 which was dismissed by the Karnataka administrative Tribunal as per Annexure-A order dated 18. 01. 2007. Though the applicant filed Review Application No. 26 of 2007, it was rejected by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal as per Annexure-B order. Aggrieved by Annexures-A and B orders passed by the Karnataka administrative Tribunal, the applicant has filed this writ petition challenging Annexures-A and B orders.

(2.) THE dispute is confined to the claim of the petitioner for the fifth stagnation increment which was due on 1. 4. 1997. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31. 05. 1998. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to be granted the fifth stagnation increment which had fallen due on 01. 04. 1997 prior to his retirement from service. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the respondents on the ground that as per the Government Order dated 18. 3. 1996, the grant of stagnation increment shall be subject to the condition that the Government Servant should have satisfactory record of service and that the petitioner did not have satisfactory record of service during the relevant period as disciplinary action had been initiated against him in respect of certain serious irregularities committed by him during the period 1996-1997 and the penalty of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect was imposed on him vide order dated 13. 08. 1998. Though the petitioner contended that the order dated 13. 08. 1998 and the penalty imposed by that order cannot stand in the way of grant of stagnation increment to the petitioner as the order dated 13. 08. 1998 was passed after his retirement from service. The Tribunal overruled the objection and held that irrespective of legality of the order dated 13. 08. 1998 the petitioner did not have satisfactory record of service during the relevant period and therefore he was not eligible for grant of stagnation increment.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having considered the materials placed on record, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is not disputed that the grant of stagnation increment is subject to the condition that the Government servant should have satisfactory record of service. It is also not disputed that before his retirement from service on superannuation, disciplinary action had been initiated against the petitioner in respect of serious irregularities committed by him during the period 1996-1997 and the disciplinary proceedings ended in imposition of penalty of withholding of one annual increment. The contention of the petitioner that the order dated 13. 08. 1998 imposing the penalty of withholding one annual increment after his retirement from service is an illegal order and therefore it cannot be held against him in the matter of grant of stagnation increment. If an illegal order was passed against the petitioner imposing a penalty, it was open to the petitioner to challenge the said order and get the order set aside by the Competent Authority. The petitioner had not averred anywhere in the application or in the application for review that he was not aware of the order dated 13. 08. 1998 or that the said order was not communicated to him. Therefore, he allowed the said order dated 13. 08. 1998 to remain in force. At any rate, the alleged illegality of the order dated 13. 08. 1998 may not be relevant in deciding the petitioner's claim for stagnation increment which was due on 1. 4. 1997. What is required under the Government Order dated 18. 3. 1996 is satisfactory record of service. The fact that the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner for alleged irregularities during the period 1996-1997 and in the enquiry the charges were proved against the petitioner and the disciplinary proceedings ended in the imposition of penalty, though after his retirement from service, indicates that the petitioner had no satisfactory record of service during the relevant period. Therefore, the Tribunal was right and justified in holding that the applicant is not entitled for a direction to the respondents to grant the stagnation increment to the applicant.