Karnataka HC Upholds Denial Of Pay Protection To Former High Court SDA Appointed To Excise Job At A Higher Pay Scale

The petitioner was appointed as a Second Division Assistant (SDA) in the Karnataka High Court in 2001.

After being selected for appointment as a First Division Assistant (FDA) in the Excise Department, he resigned from the SDA post; his resignation was accepted under Rule 252(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs), and he joined the Department in January 2007.

His prior High Court service was later counted under Rule 224A of the KCSRs.

The Department rejected his request for pay protection under Rule 41-A, reasoning that he had been an employee of the High Court, not a Government servant in a service department.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application, and he challenged that decision before the High Court.

Rule 41-A of the KCSRs regulates the pay of a Government servant regularly appointed to another post under the relevant recruitment rules.

Where the new post has a lower pay scale, the rule provides for pay fixation by reference to the stage the employee would have reached in that scale; where the scales are identical, pay is fixed at the stage equal to the pay drawn in the former post.

Rule 252(b) was treated as preserving continuity of service where the resignation followed an application for appointment made with the employer’s permission.

In Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. Farid Sattar, (2000) 4 SCC 13, the Supreme Court protected an employee’s existing pay on transfer to a lower pay scale; the High Court distinguished that situation from the petitioner’s move to a higher pay scale.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s SDA pay scale began at Rs. 3,375, while the FDA post carried a higher scale of Rs. 3,850–7,050.

It explained that Rule 41-A addresses pay fixation where the new post has a lower or identical scale, and found Farid Sattar inapplicable because that case concerned movement to a lower scale.

The petitioner’s request also sought fixation under the 2018 Revised Pay Rules, although he had joined the FDA post in 2007; the Court held that he could not claim the benefit of a later pay revision for his original appointment years earlier.

The Court expressly left open whether High Court staff service could be equated with public service or service in the affairs of the State.

It rejected the challenge to the Department’s refusal of pay protection and the request to refix pay under the 2018 Revised Pay Rules; the writ petition was dismissed.