S.C. MANDAKKI ETC. versus THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE ETC.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1033 · Decided: 29-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

"' . 
S.C. MANDAKKI ETC. 
v. 
THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND 
FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE ETC. 
JANUARY 29,, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Kamataka Civil Services (Time Bound Advancement) Rules/Kar-
nataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules: 
A 
B 
c 
Rules 3, 16/Rule 6--Advance increment to employees who have com-
pleted 10 years of service but not promoted to higher post-Seeking voluntary 
transfer to another post-Ten years period to be counted from the day the 
employee joins the po~! pn voluntary transfer-Services which do not count D 
for the purpose of detennining seniority for promotion-Not to be taken for 
reckoning the 10 years perio<J for grant of advance increment. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3497 of 
1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.1.93 of the Karnataka Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, At Bangalore in A. No. 1545 of 1992. 
P.R. Ramasesh for the Appellant. 
M. Veerappa for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
E 
F 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. The appellant was ap-
pointed as a Junior Laboratory Technician in the Department of Family G 
Health and Family Welfare Service on May 3, 1979. He had applied on 
September 16, 1986 for transfer and posting him as !st Division Assistant 
in the same Department. By proceedings dated October 28, 1986, he was 
posted as a !st Divisional Assistant in the same department. Karnataka 
Civil Services (Time Bound Advancement) Rules, 1983) provide for giving H 
1033 
1034 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A advance increment, under Rule 16 thereof to the candidate who has 
completed 10 years of service but was not promoted to a higher post. The 
appellant had applied for grant of the said benefit in 1989. By proceedings 
dated October 15, 1989, the same was rejected. Consequently, he filed a 
representation in the Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated 
B January 13, 1993 in Application No. 1545/92 dismissed the same. Thus this 
appeal by special leave. 
Shri P.R. Ramesh , the learned counsel for the appellant, contended 
that the descriptive criteria prescribed in Rule 3 clause (a) of the Rules 
must be read analogous to the work charged service or the service put up 
C by a local candidate which would only be excluded. Since the appellant has 
been discharging his duties from May 3, 1979 carrying the same scale of 
pay though of descriptive nature of the post, the appellant had completed 
ten years of service as on May 19, 1989 and that, therefore, he is eligible 
to the increment under the Rules. Shri Veerappa, the learned counsel for 
the State, contended that proviso to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government 
D 
Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957 as amended in 1976 is applicable to the 
facts of this case. By its operation, the appellant having voluntarily opted 
to get posted as a Junior Assistant, though in the same department, for the 
purpose of promotion, he having become junior most, unless he completes 
10 years of service along with his companions, he is not eligible to be 
E promoted. Thereafter, he becomes eligible to be considered. The Tribunal, 
therefore, was right.in rejecting the claim of the appellant. 
F 
G 
H 
Having regard to the facts and respective conditions, the only ques-
tion is that whether the appellant is entitled to tag his service from May 3, 
1979 to October 28, 1986 for the computation of the 10 years period under 
the Rules for getting advaPce increment.· Rule 3 of the Rules reads thus : 
"3. Grant of time bound advancement and conditions of eligibility: 
The Appointing Authority shall grant to a Government servant 
who is holding a post carrying pay scale specified in column (2) 
of the Schedule the selection time scale of pay specified in the 
corresponding Column (3) thereof if : 
(a) he has put in a service of not less than ten years in the post 
held by him excluding his service as a local candidate work-
charged employees or any other service which does not count 
I 
. .._,., 
... 
s.C.MANDAKKJ>.DIRECTOROFHEALTHANDFAMILYWELFARESERVJCE 1035 
for the purpose of determining seniority for promotion; 
A 
Rule 6 of the Seniority Rules reads thus : 
"The transfer of a person in public interest from one class or grade 
of a service to another class or grade carrying the same pay or 
scale of pay shall not be treated as first appointment to the latter B 
for purposes of seniority; and the seniority of a person so tran

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.