Temporary appointments do not qualify for promotion benefits under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules without regular promotion.

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA)

The petitioners are challenging the order dated 05.03.2018 in Application Nos.11124 and 11125 of 2016 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the applicants’ plea for grant of time scale pay, increments and pensionary benefits for the post of Reserve Sub-Inspector(RSI) (Higher Post) under Rule 42-B of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short, ‘KCSR’), was dismissed and the endorsements issued by the Inspector General of Police stood confirmed.

2. The petitioners were working as Armed Police Constables in Police Department. Vide order dated 30.01.2013, they were placed in independent charge of vacant RSI post under Rule 32 read with Rule 68 of KCSR. The petitioners continued to perform duties of RSI until their retirement in 2013-14. The petitioners being not extended the benefits as revised to RSI Scale, submitted representations seeking such benefits under Rule 42-B of the KCSR, which came to be rejected by the department, leading to filing of applications before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected their applications holding that the petitioners are not promoted on regular basis and their service in RSI post cannot be counted for pay fixation or pension under Rule 42-B of KCSR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order dated 30.01.2013, the petitioners were appointed to the vacant post of RSI and discharged the full responsibilities and duties of that post until their retirement. It is argued that under Rule 42-B of KCSR, officiating service in a higher post should count for pay fixation, increments and pensionary benefits and the denial of the increments is unjust and arbitrary.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State inviting the attention of this court to the order dated 30.01.2013 submits that the appointment of the petitioners to the RSI post was temporary and conditional made under Rule 32 of KCSR, which does not confer regular status. It is submitted that under Rule 32 of KCSR such charge does not entitle the officer to the promotion benefits or pay scale to the higher post. It is submitted that the benefit under Rule 42-B of KCSR can only extended where an employee is subsequently promoted on regular basis to the post in which he had officiated. The petitioners retired without being promoted to RSI post and hence they do not fulfill the condition under Rule 42-B of KCSR.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is”

“Whether the petitioners appointment under order dated 30.01.2013 under Rule 32 and Rule 68 of KCSR qualifies as a promotion for the purpose of Rule 42-B of KCSR?”

6. In order to answer the point for consideration, we have considered the scope of Rule 32, Rule 68 and Rule 42-B of KCSR.

7. Rule 32 of KCSR reads as under:

“32. Instead of appointing a Government servant to officiate, it is also permissible to appoint him to be in charge of the current duties of a vacant post. In such a case a “charge allowance” (additional pay) is payable as specified in Rule 68.

[Note 1].- A Government servant can be appointed under this Rule to be in-charge of the current duties of a vacant post only if he is eligible to be promoted to officiate in that post according to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules applicable to that post or if he is holding a post in an equivalent or higher grade.]

[Note 2]. - The provisions of this Rule apply also to cases where a Government servant being relieved of his own appointment is appointed to be in independent charge of a