Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :

(i) The petitioner is a member of the Indian Administrative Service, borne on the Karnataka Cadre. By order dated 8th March, 1982 of the State Government, he was appointed as the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, which is a non-cadre post, declared as equivalent in rank to that of the Divisional Commissioner included in Schedule - III of the Rules. He assumed office of the Commissioner on 12th March, 1982. On this taking charge of the said post, pay slip was given to him by the Accountant General, permitting him to draw the initial salary of Rs. 2,500/- in the Supertime pay scale of Rs. 2500-125/2-2750. After the expiry of two years from the date of his appointment to the said post on 8th March, 1984, the petitioner claimed by his letter dated 19th March, 1984 that he should be given the first increment in the said pay scale. This request of the petitioner was turned down in view of clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Rule 5(a) of the Rules. It was pointed out that according to the above Rules, the petitioner would be entitled to count his service for purpose of drawing increments in the Supertime scale only from the date on which his junior in the I.A.S. was appointed to the Supertime scale and as his junior Sri G. Muniyappa was appointed to the cadre post in Super-time scale on 28th February, 1983, the petitioner would be entitled to count his service only from the said date for the purpose of grant of increment in the Super-time scale. The petitioner does not dispute that the above view taken by the Accountant General is correct according to the Rule referred to above. The petitioner, however, has challenged the constitutional validity of the said provision on the ground that as the provision denies to a member of the service appointed to an ex-cadre post the benefit of a part of the service rendered by him in a Supertime scale post, i.e., till the date on which a junior of his is promoted to a cadre post to which the concerned ex-cadre post is declared equivalent, for the purpose of eligibility for drawing increment, is discriminatory and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. This Writ Petition was prescribed before this Court on 11th September, 1984.

(i) The post to which a member is posted must be declared equivalent to the cadre post, and

(ii) It must carry the same pay scale as that of the cadre post.

The State Government has declared three posts, namely, the post of the Commissioner of the Corporation of City of Bangalore, the Commissioner of the Bangalore Development Authority and the Managing Director of the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation as posts equivalent to super time scale in the Indian Administrative Service cadre carrying a pay-scale of Rs. 2,500-125/2-2750. The petitioner was appointed as Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore on 8th March, 1982 and he joined duty on 12th March, 1982. He claimed that he should be given the first increment in the said pay scale with effect from the date on which he completed two years of service in the supertime scale. This claim was rejected and he was allowed to earn increment only with effect from 28th February, 1983, the date when his junior Sri Muniyappa was promoted to super-time scale and appointed against a vacancy in a cadre post. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner was in view of the impugned rule. It reads :