- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard the counsel on both sides. The appellant was appointed as a Junior Laboratory Technician in the Department of Family Health and Family Welfare Service on 3/5/1979. He had applied on 16/9/1986 for transfer and posting him as 1st Divisional Assistant in the same Department. By proceedings dated 28/10/1986, he was posted as a 1st Divisional Assistant in the same department. Karnataka Civil Services (Time-Bound Advancement) Rules, 1983 provide for giving 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 15/10/1989, the same was rejected. Consequently, he filed a representation in the Administrative tribunal which by its order dated 13/1/1993 in Application No. 1545 of 1992 dismissed the same. Thus this appeal by special leave.
(3.) Shri P. R. Ramasesh. 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 by a local candidate which would only be excluded. Since the appellant has been discharging his duties from 3/5/1979 carrying the same scale of pay though of descriptive nature of the post, the appellant had completed ten years of service as on 19-5-1989 and that, therefore, he is eligible to the increment under the Rules. Shri Veerappa, learned counsel for the State, contended that proviso to Rule 6 of the Karnataka government 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 juniormost, unless he completes 10 years of service along with his companions, he is not eligible to be promoted. Thereafter, he becomes eligible to be considered. The tribunal, therefore, was right in rejecting the claim of the appellant.;