LexG. RABINATHAN versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
G. RABINATHAN A v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. APRIL 3, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B Service Law Kamataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957: Rule 154..!.seniority-Defence Officer-Appointment to NCC and later C to State Service-Service rendered in defence and NCC-Computation of for seniority in State Service-Held for benefit under Rule 6A there should be continuity of servi:e-Matter remitted to State for consideration Whether NCC service is defence service. The appellant joined service as Emergency Commissioned Officer on June 30, 1963 and was released therefrom on 16.9.1967. Thereafter, he joined NCC on 30.12.1967 where he continued upto 21st June 1972. From 27th June 1972 he was appointed as Probationary Commercial Tax Officer by the State of Karnataka. He requested the Government for condonation D of the break in service between the Defence and the NCC and the Govern· E men! gave him continuity for the purpose of his seniority with effect from October 13, 1963. The appellant claimed seniority from 1963 but the same was denied. He ftled an appli!=8tion before the State Administrative Tribunal which was rejected. In appeals to this Court on the question whether the appellant was F entitled to the benefit of Rule 6-A of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957: Allowing the appeals and setting aside the orders of Tribunal, this Court HELD: 1. A reading of Rule 6A of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 would clearly indicate that the transfer or appointment of an officer of the Defence Services to an All India Service or a Civil Service of the Union or the Civil Service of any other State to G any equivalent class or grade of service In the State Civil Services shall H 129 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R. A not be treated as first appointment to that class· or grade of service for purpose of seniority. The Rule indicates that there should be continuity of the service. [132-D] 2. If there is no break in service, certainly the appellant would be entitled to rixation of seniority with effect from 30.6.1963. However, he B was given continuity for the purpose of seniority with effect from October 13, 1963 but the larger question whether the service in the NCC was a Defence Service was not decided and the Tribunal observed that, that would be eminently a matter to be decided by the Government. Under these circumstances, Court cannot make any such declaration. Accordingly, the C matter is remitted to the Government for consideration of the case. In the event the Government comes to the conclusion that the NCC Service would be part of the Defence Service, the appellant would be entitled to the continuity of the service with effect from 30.6.1963. (132-E to H, 133-A] State of Kamataka v. B.S.N. Reddy and Ors., [1995] Suppl. 3 SCC D 657, held inapplicable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4430-31 of 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.1994 of the Karnataka E Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in A. Nos. 1875 and 1710 of 1990. F Raju Ramachandran, Joseph Pookkatt and R.A. Perumal Advs. for the Appellant. Dr. R.B. Masodkar and K.L. Taneja for the Respondents No. 1-9. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. G Heard both the counsel on merilo. The only question is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Rule 6-A of the Karnataka Govern- ment Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, for short the Rules, amended with effect from November 13, 1969. The factual matrix lie in a short compass. The appellant was appointed in the defence service as an Emergency H Commissioned Officer with effect from June 30, 1963 and he was released ' G. RABINATIIAN v. STATE 131 from defence service on 16.9.1967 after noon. Thereafter, he was again A granted commission in NCC and he joined the service on 30.12.1967. He continued in NCC upto 21.6.1972 after-noon. In the meanwhile, he had applied for the recruitment in the Karnataka State Civil Service as a Probationary Commercial Tax Officer. He was selected and appointed with effect from 27.6.1972 Forenoon. On its basis, he claimed seniority from B 1963 and when denied, he approached the Tribunal in Application Nos. 1875/90 and 4720/90. When there was a difference of opinion between the two members of the Tribunal, on reference, the Full Bench held that the matter is covered by the orders of this Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.