Retrospective Service Benefits Count as Continuous Service for IAS Promotion.

The applicants were initially selected for Non-State Civil Services in 2006 following the KPSC Gazetted Probationers - 1998 examination

Due to prolonged litigation, including the Hon'ble High Court's order in *Khaleel Ahmed v. State of Karnataka* (ILR 2016 Kar 5185) and its confirmation by the Supreme Court, the selection list was revised between 2019 and 2021.

This revision resulted in the applicants being appointed to State Civil Services Group A (K.A.S.) with retrospective effect from their initial appointment date in 2006.

To regularize this, the State Government enacted the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021 (the "Special Rules"), which provided for retrospective declaration of probation and promotional rights within KAS with reference to their juniors.

Correspondingly, the applicants received provisional seniority lists in KAS Junior Scale (16.09.2021), Senior Scale (17.11.2021), and Selection Grade (14.12.2021), with retrospective promotions to KAS Senior Scale from 17.09.2011 and Selection Grade from 20.09.2019.

The applicants, who had meritorious service in their original non-state civil service posts (Assistant Controllers of Accounts and Assistant Commissioners of Commercial Taxes), sought consideration for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).

However, the State Government, in a communication dated 19.04.2023, declared them ineligible for the select list of 2022 on the grounds that they had not rendered eight years of continuous service in the KAS scale, as they were formally appointed to KAS only in 2019 and 2020.

This communication is challenged, with applicants arguing their retrospective KAS appointment and continuous service, often in posts declared equivalent to Deputy Collector under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, should make them eligible.

The respondents, including the Union of India and UPSC, contend that "continuous service" under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, means "actual service" in the Deputy Collector equivalent post, which the applicants do not possess prior to 2021.

Whether retrospective service benefits created for the applicants by the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021, count as "continuous service" under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955?

Whether the State can deny de-facto equivalent experience to applicants for their actual service rendered under Karnataka non-state civil services posts, formally declared equivalent to Deputy Collector under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, combined with their subsequent retrospective service benefits given by the Special Rules, to count as "continuous service" under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955?

Whether the State Government was justified in stating in its communication dated 19.04.2023 that the applicants, appointed to KAS on 15.06.2019 and 02.01.2020 respectively, had not rendered eight years of continuous service in the KAS scale and were therefore not considered for the select list – 2022?

When will the applicants be eligible for promotion to the IAS cadre as per the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955?

The Tribunal considered the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, specifically Regulation 5(2) and its third and fourth provisos, which address the requirement of "not less than eight years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Collector or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government" for promotion to IAS.

The definition of "State Civil Service" from Regulation 2(j)(ii) of the 1955 Regulations was also referenced.

The Karnataka Civil Services (1998 batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021, enacted under Section 8(2) of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, which allows for retrospective effect, formed the basis for the applicants' retrospective seniority and promotions within KAS.

The IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, under which the applicants' prior non-state civil service posts were declared equivalent to Deputy Collector, was also examined implicitly to recognize their de-facto experience.

The Tribunal also considered the principles against perpetuating injustice from *Union of India v. K.B. Rajoria* ((2000) 3 SCC 562) and *Soorya Madhaba Panigrahi v. Union of India and Others* (O.A. 521 of 2021), affirming that "regular service" does not mean "actual physical service" and that notional promotion can be considered.

The principles of harmonious construction of statutes (State and Central), avoidance of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and the doctrine that legal fiction must be carried to its logical conclusion were also applied.

The Tribunal found that the State Government's contention that "continuous service" in Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, implied only "actual service" was contradictory to the regulation's own wording and established legal principles.

It highlighted that Regulation 5(2) itself differentiates between "continuous service" (in the third proviso) and "actual continuous service" (in the fourth proviso, an exception for ex-servicemen), suggesting that "continuous service" does not exclusively mean "actual physical service".

The Tribunal reasoned that if ex-servicemen could count deemed service, the applicants' statutorily backed retrospective service, arising from judicial orders and curative legislation, should also be recognized.

The Special Rules, which conferred retrospective seniority and promotional rights within KAS on the applicants from 2006, were duly enacted under Section 8(2) of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, which explicitly allows for retrospective legislation to address injustices.

The Tribunal underscored that these Special Rules were designed to remedy a historic wrong caused by KPSC irregularities and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, ignoring the status conferred by these valid State Rules would violate the principle of harmonious construction between State and Central laws and would perpetuate the very injustice the rules sought to correct.

The Tribunal noted the State's inconsistent application of rules, observing that other KAS officers promoted to IAS had held miscellaneous, non-equivalent posts for which no formal declaration of equivalence under the 1955 Regulations existed, yet were deemed eligible.

This disparate treatment, applying strict standards to the applicants while being liberal with others, was deemed arbitrary, discriminatory, and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It held that the retrospective service benefits conferred by the Karnataka Civil Services (1998 Batch Gazetted Probationers) (Declaration of Probation and Fixation of Pay) (Special) Rules, 2021, must count as "continuous service" under the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, as there is no contradiction between these State and Federal rules which are to be read harmoniously.

The State cannot deny the applicants' de-facto equivalent experience, formally recognized under related regulations, in conjunction with their retrospective KAS service.

The State Government was not justified in its impugned communication.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicants for promotion to the IAS cadre from the date their juniors were promoted, as per the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, provided they are otherwise eligible, with a directive to create and accommodate them in supernumerary posts until pending cases are disposed of.

They are entitled to all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits with GPF rate of interest, retrospectively from the date of their eligibility if otherwise eligible.

The State Government is directed to make a necessary proposal within three weeks, and the Government of India and UPSC shall complete the process within seven weeks thereafter.

A cost of Rs. 2 lakhs is payable by the third respondent (State of Karnataka) to each of the four applicants individually.