Eligibility for retrospective promotion is affirmed when a retired government servant has discharged duties in an independent charge role, regardless of subsequent promotions to juniors.

ORAL ORDER :

S.G.PANDIT, J.

The petitioner, a retired Commercial Tax Inspector belonging to Commercial Tax Department is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness or otherwise of order dated 20.08.2016 in Application No.3958/2004 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the petitioner’s challenge to endorsement dated 08.10.2003 and his prayer to consider for grant of retrospective promotion from the date he was placed in independent charge of the post of Commercial Tax Officer is rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner who was working as Commercial Tax Inspector was placed under Rule 32 of the KCSRs to the post of Commercial Tax Officer on 18.10.1997. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2003. It is submitted that by notification dated 06.05.2002, 252 posts of direct recruitment vacancies of Commercial Tax Officers were freezed and were made available to promotion. The petitioner is said to have submitted representation on 15.09.2003 seeking retrospective promotion to the cadre of Commercial Tax Officer. The said representation was rejected under endorsement dated 18.10.2003 (Annexure-A6). The petitioner’s request for retrospective promotion was rejected stating that the petitioner would not fall within the quota available for promotion and as he has retired from service, he would not be entitled for any promotion. Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application and the Tribunal dismissed the said application.

3. During the pendency of the said application, the juniors of the petitioner were retrospectively promoted to the cadre of Commercial Tax Officer from the date on which they were placed in independent charge under Rule 32 of the KCSRs to the post of Commercial Tax Officer under the notification dated 29.04.2004 (Annexure-D). Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out from the seniority list of Commercial Tax Inspectors that the petitioner is at Sl.No.1363 and also points out that one of his junior Sri.Nasrulla Beg is at Sl.No.1368. It is also pointed out from the notification dated 29.04.2004 that his junior Sri.Nasrulla Beg is retrospectively promoted from 13.09.1997, the date on which the petitioner as well as his juniors were placed in independent charge under Rule 32 of KCSRs. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court questioning the order of the Tribunal as well as endorsement issued by the respondent-Authorities refusing to consider the case of the petitioner for retrospective promotion.

4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

5. Learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar for petitioner would contend that the Tribunal committed error in rejecting the petitioner’s request for retrospective promotion. However, he submits that the material produced at Annexures-D and E, notification dated 29.04.2004 providing retrospective promotion to the petitioner’s juniors and the seniority list of Commercial Tax Officers published on 30.09.2014 respectively were not made available before the Tribunal. However, he submits that those documents are placed before this Court so as to strengthen the contention of the petitioner that his juniors are promoted retrospectively from the date on which, they were placed in independent charge under Rule 32 of the KCSRs.

6. Learned counsel Sri.Vijay Kumar points out that the retrospective promotion to the juniors of the petitioner were provided on the date prior to retirement of the petitioner. There