KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT BLIND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

learned senior counsel Smt. Jayna Kothari for Sri. Naveen Chandra.V., learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri. Damodar Shanbhag., Sri. Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 7

#3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Association would submit that petitioner- Association is before this Court seeking for a direction to the State Government to provide 4% reservations in promotions to persons with benchmark disabilities in Group-A and B categories and also praying for quashing O.M. dated 17.05.2022 issued by fourth respondent - Union of India to the extent that it only allows promotion to Group-A to the last rung in Group-A and to direct that reservations in Group-A should not be subjected to any such restriction along with other prayers.

#4. When a specific query was put to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Association as to when the statutory forum is established under the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘1985 Act’) for redressal of grievance of Government Servants, whether this Court should entertain the writ petition, learned senior counsel submitted that since 8 petitioner-Association is only seeking for mandamus to provide 4% reservation in promotions to Group-A and B categories to persons belonging to benchmark disabilities and when the matter of reservation is involved, writ could be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

#5. Section 14 of 1985 Act confers jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal to deal with the grievances of the Central Government Employees and other notified Central Government Institutions. Section 15 of 1985 Act confers jurisdiction on the State Administrative Tribunals to deal with the grievances of the State Government Employees and notified other local bodies or institutions. Section 3(q) of 1985 Act defines ‘service matters’ which reads as follows: “3(q). “service matters”, in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local 9 or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation or society owned or controlled the Government, respects— (i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation; (iii) leave of any kind; (iv) disciplinary matters; or (v) any other matter whatsoever”

#6. Service matters includes matters pertaining to recruitment, promotion, disciplinary proceedings, pension etc., of civil servants or holders of civil posts.

#7. petitioner-Association’s first prayer direct the State Government to provide 4% reservations in promotions to persons with benchmark disabilities in Group-A and Group-B categories of government posts. 10 When the petitioner-Association is seeking reservation in promotion for benchmark disability persons in Group-A and Group-B categories of Government posts, it would be service matter and it is appropriate for the petitioner- Association to approach the Tribunal established under 1985 Act.

#8. Insofar as prayer to quash O.M. dated

17.05.2022 of respondent No.4 – Union of India, the same relates to the Central Government Employees and for redressal of Central Government Employees, Central Administrative Tribunal would be the appropriate forum.

#9. When statute provides special forum for redressal of grievance of Government Servants and the matters relating to recruitment and promotion, this Court restrains itself from entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal established under 1985 Act is the Court of first 11 instance for the Government Employees, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in L.CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS1.

#10. For the reasons recorded above, I decline to entertain the writ petition and it is open for the petitioner-Association to approach appropriate forum established under the 1985 Act. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC. CT:bms 1 (1997) 3 SCC 261