THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19-3-2025 IN APPLICATION NO.2175 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, AS PER ANNEXURES-A AND B.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28-4-2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, VENKATESH NAIK T. J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners/State questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 19.03.2025 passed in Application No.2175/2024 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (hereinafter referred to as “KSAT”), wherein the KSAT quashed the endorsement issued by the first petitioner/State and further directed the petitioners/State to grant all consequential benefits to respondent No.1, to which, he would be entitled to, in the post of promoted cadre.

2. Brief facts of respondent No.1's case before the KSAT in nutshell is as under:

Respondent No.1 - Rangaswamy A.R. was appointed as a School Headmaster on 17.01.1994 and he was promoted to the cadre of Professor, C.T.E., Jamkhandi, on 31.05.2023 (which is equivalent to Reader/DDPI). Respondent No.1 handed over the charge and he reported for duty in the promoted post i.e., Professor on 31.05.2023 at 5.20 p.m., in view of his promotion and on the same day, he was relieved from service in view of his retirement. On 14.08.2023, respondent No.1 submitted a representation to petitioner No.1-State requesting for his promotional benefits from the date of his promotion. However, the petitioner No.1/State Government issued an endorsement dated 30.05.2024 rejecting the request of respondent No.1 dated 14.08.2023. Hence, respondent No.1 filed application No.2175/2024 before the KSAT, Bengaluru. In turn, the KSAT allowed the said application. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the KSAT, the State Government preferred this petition.

3. The dispute in the present case lies in a narrow compass because it relates to fixation of pay to respondent No.1 in the promoted post. Admittedly, respondent No.1 was serving as Senior Lecturer, DIET, Ramanagara and he was promoted to the post of Professor, C.T.E., Jamkhandi, on 31.05.2023, on which date, he retired from service on superannuation. Respondent No.1 had reported to the promoted post at 5.20 p.m. on 31.05.2023. Thus, the State Government has fixed the pensionary benefits and such other incidental benefits of respondent No.1 by taking the pay scale of respondent No.1 in the cadre of Senior Lecturer. Now respondent No.1 claims that his pay scale for the purpose of fixation of pension and such other incidental benefits has to be taken in the cadre of Professor, C.T.E., Jamkhandi, i.e., in the promoted post, which came into effect from 31.05.2023. The State has rejected the said claim on the ground that Rules governing promotion of Government servants more particularly Rule 23, Rule 33 and Rule 42 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, read with Section 4 of Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973, provide for calculating the pay of the retiring person on the next day in the promoted post, if the said person retires on the same day of his promotion and that the KSAT, while considering the case on merits, has wrongly interpreted Rule 32 of KCS Rules and held that the petitioners were wrong in calculating the pensionary benefits of respondent No.1 of his previous post and not calculating the same for the promoted post and the said finding of the KSAT is wrong. Hence, the State Government has preferred the instant petition.

4. Heard learned Additional Advocate General Sri. Reuben Jacob for the petitioners/State and learned counsel Sri. Anil Kumar B.O. and Sr