Bangalore.
However, while the first relief claimed in that application was that the respondents should be given the benefit of the revised Pay Rules, the second relief claimed therein was that the service rendered by each of them to the State between their earlier retirement at the superannuation age of 55 years and their subsequent retirement at their superannuation age of 58 years, ought to be taken into account as their companytinued State Civil Service for companyputing their pensionary benefits.
Since respondent I satisfied the three companyditions of the Government order dated 17.9.1984, the State Government, by its order dated 5.6.1985, treated respondent 1 as one who had companytinued in regular Civil service and appointed him as Assistant Director Co ordination , Directorate of Backward Classes and Minorities.
220 of 1989 before the KAT sought from it, review of the said order dated 11.10.1988 in so far it had gone against each or them.
204 of 1989 and the State by making Review Application No.
However, the Karnataka Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1987 the Revised Pay Rules, came into force w.e.f.
While respondents 1 and 2 were in State Civil Service.
H. Someshwar, respondent 2, who belonged to the Karnataka State Secretariat Service, was ordered to retire on 31.3.1984 on attaining the superannuation age of 55 years, while he was working as Joint Secretary to Government, However, he was re employed by the State Government on companytract basis w.e.f.
1.7.1986 enhancing the scales of pay of the State Government servants, while respondents 1 and 2 had companytinued in State Civil Service because of specific orders made in that regard on the basis of Government order dated 17.9.1984 Which treated the periods of re employment also as their regular companytinuing Civil Service, Yet, the benefits of the Revised Pay Rides were denied to the respondents, as regards their pay and pension.
Vice Sri R. Stanty Joseph, promoted.
He was working as Secretary, Karnataka Housing Board on 31.7.1984 when he was ordered to retire on attaining the superannuation age of 55 years.
4 SCR 254 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALA, J. These appeals by special leave, of the State of Karnataka are directed against a companymon Order of the Karnataka Ad ministrative Tribunal the KAT made on September 3, 1990 in Review Application Nos.
However, he was re employed by the State Government on companytract basis w.e.f 1.8.1984, subject to the companyditions of service companytained in rule 313 b of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1957 the KCS Rules, as Secretary to the Chairman, Karnataka State Sports Council, for the period companyterminus with that of the Chairman.
However, the respondents by making Review Application No.
On their re employment, the State Government issued an order dated 24.8.1984 enhancing the retirement superannuation age of all Government servants in State Civil Service from 55 to 58 years and gave retrospective effect to it from 2.8.1984.
2382 of 1987 before the KAT calling in question a provision in the Revised Pay Rules which had made those rules inapplicable to pensioners who had been re employed in Government service after retirement.
This situation led respondents 1 and 2 to the filing of a joint Application No.
Vasudeva Mayya, respondent I was a Govt.
It is the said companymon order made in the Review Applications which is questioned by the State in the present appeals, by special leave.
The KAT which decided that application by its order dated 11.10.1988, while held that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the Revised Pay Rules and directed the State to give the benefit of those Revised Pay Rules to them, disallowed the claim of the respondents for companynting the period of their service between their earlier superannuation and their subsequent superannuation, for granting then pensionary benefits.
Subsequently, the Government issued another order dated 17.9.1984, treating some of the retired Government servants who had retired on superannuation at the age of 55 years, but had been re employed in State Civil Service on companytract basis as those companytinuing in State Civil Service till they attained the superannuation age of 58 years, if they were to satisfy three companyditions specified thereunder.
204 and 220 of 1989.
The KAT on companysideration of the said Review Applications, by its companymon order made in them on 3.9.1990 while allowed the Review Application of the respondents, dismissed the review Application of the State.
1994 SUPPL.
servant belonging to the cadre of KAS, Group A Junior Scale .
Thereafter, the State Government, by its order dated 3.7.1987 retired respondent 1 from service on 31.7.1987 A N , when he attained the superannuation age of 58 years on 15.7.1987, as was being done in respect pf other regular Government servants.
Similarly, respondent 2 who satisfied the three companyditions of the said Government order dated 17.9.1984 and who had been specifically companytinued in State Civil Service as Joint Secretary to Government under Government order dated 25.1.1985, was subsequently retired from service w.e.f.
313.1987 when he also attained the superannuation age of 58 years.
1.4.1984 subject to the companyditions of service in rule 313 b of the KCS Rules, as Secretary, Dr, Sarojini Mahishi Committee, for the period company terminus with that of the companymittee.
