A contract appointee is entitled to pay protection upon regular recruitment to the same post.

The petitioner worked as a Junior Training Officer on contract from 1993 and was later appointed to the same post through KPSC direct recruitment in 2003.

In 2004, the State granted her pay protection and certain service benefits, but withdrew that order in 2010 and directed recovery of the excess payment.

The petitioner challenged the withdrawal and recovery.

In an earlier writ proceeding, the High Court directed the State to examine whether she had committed fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining pay protection; the Court did not stay the prospective withdrawal of pay protection.

Following an inquiry, the State found no fraud or misrepresentation but nevertheless ordered recovery in 2019.

The Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s subsequent application in 2022, and she challenged that decision and the State’s recovery order in this writ petition.

Whether the petitioner, appointed by regular direct recruitment to the same post she had held on contract, was entitled to pay protection under Rule 41A(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs).

Whether recovery of the amounts paid under the earlier pay-protection order was justified when the State found no fraud or misrepresentation and the petitioner claimed entitlement under Rule 41A.

Rule 41A(ii) of the KCSRs provides that, where a Government servant is regularly appointed to another post carrying a scale of pay identical to that of the post last held, pay is to be fixed at the stage equal to the pay drawn in the previous post.

The Court considered the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of Persons appointed on contract basis in the category of posts of Craft Instructors/Junior Instructors (Re-designated as Junior Training Officers) in the Department of Employment and Training (Training Wing) (Special) Rules, 2002, which provided pay protection and specified service benefits to absorbed employees; those Rules did not apply to the petitioner because she entered service through direct recruitment.

The Court also applied the directions in its earlier order requiring an inquiry into fraud or misrepresentation before recovery was decided.

The Tribunal had relied on Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 117, in addressing recovery.

Although the petitioner was a direct recruit and therefore could not claim benefits under the 2002 Absorption Rules, she had previously held the same post and was regularly appointed to it through KPSC selection.

The Court held that Rule 41A(ii) applied to those circumstances and entitled her to pay protection at the stage corresponding to her earlier pay.

The State’s inquiry found no fraud or misrepresentation, yet the State ordered recovery.

The Court concluded that recovery was unwarranted; independently, its finding that the petitioner was entitled to pay protection under Rule 41A meant there was no basis to recover the amounts paid under the earlier order.

It directed the respondents to consider and grant pay protection under Rule 41A(ii) on the petitioner’s direct recruitment as Junior Training Officer, together with consequential benefits, within three months.