Dilip B. Bhosale, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners, who are presently working as drivers in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, have called in question the letter/order 1.7.2013 issued by respondent No. 3-Under Secretary (Administration-I), Department of Law, Justice and Human Rights. By this order, the petitioners'' representations/requests seeking benefit of one additional increment, on the basis of the First National Judicial Pay Commission, chaired by Mr. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty (for short "Judicial Pay Commission") has been rejected/turned-down, holding that the drivers do not fall in the "Ministerial cadre".
2. Claim of the petitioners was based on the communication dated 15.9.2011 addressed by the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (for short "RG") to the Secretary to Government, Department of Law, Justice and Human Rights. By this communication, the RG had requested the Secretary, Law and Justice to move the Government to include the posts of "Bailiff, Process Servers and Drivers" in common category post in the "Ministerial cadre" and grant one additional increment to them with effect from 1.4.2003, based on the Judicial Pay Commission
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, invited my attention to the communication dated 15.9.2011 and order passed by this Court dated 7th November 2012 in Writ Petition Nos. 28532-533/2012. Those writ petitions were filed by Karnataka State Judicial Department "Bailiffs and Process Services" Central Association. The grievance of the petitioners in those writ petitions was that they had not been extended with the benefit of the Judicial Pay Commission only on the ground that they do not come within the meaning of Ministerial servants in terms of Rule 8(29) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short "KCSR"). The learned single Judge while dealing with the said writ petitions held that even the bailiffs and process servers apart from they go to field to serve process and execution of decrees, etc., they also carry out "clerical work". It was also observed that denial of benefit to bailiffs and process servers would amount to discriminating them, though they also discharge "clerical functions". With these observations, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the bailiffs and process servers and directed the Government to reconsider the matter by taking into consideration the object behind the extension of one increment, to "Ministerial servants of judicial department and also nature of work of bailiffs and process servers which is inclusive of clerical work" within time frame. The Government, accordingly, vide its decision dated 13.3.2013 extended the benefit of one increment to all the process servers and bailiffs. Relying upon this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the bailiffs, process servers and the drivers are Group ''C'' employees and that being so, similar benefit ought to have been extended to the drivers. He submitted that the feeding cadre for the posts of bailiffs and process servers and of drivers is Group ''D'' employees and that being so, discrimination cannot be made between drivers and process servers/bailiffs.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, submitted that, by no stretch of imagination, drivers could be treated as Ministerial servants as they do not carry out any clerical work.
6. Relevant recommendation of the Judicial Pay Commission reads thus:
"C. OUR RECOMMENDATIONS:
With due regard to the aforesaid views and comments and for reasons stated in Chapter-VII, we recommend the following:
(i) Holders of the following common category posts in the Ministerial cadres, other than to whom we have recommended higher pay scales in other Chapters, be given one increment at the initial rate of the pay scale admissible to them:
[Note: The aforesaid posts are indicative and not exhaustive. If there are any other common category posts in the Ministerial Cadres, the incumbents thereof are also entitled to the benefit of our recommendation](emphasis supplied)
7. From bare perusal of the recommendation, it is clear that posts of driver was not included in the common category posts in the Ministerial cadre. The note appended to the list of common category posts states that the posts included in the common category posts in the Ministerial cadres are indicative and not exhaustive and if there are any other common category posts in the "Ministerial cadres", the incumbents thereof are also entitled for the benefit of our recommendation. It appears that on the basis of the note appended to the list of common category posts in the Ministerial cadre, the RG vide communication dated 15.09.2011 addressed to the Secretary, Law and Justice, recommended to the Government to include the posts of "bailiffs, process servers and drivers" in common category posts in the Ministerial cadres stating that they come under Ministerial cadres. In short, a request was made to'' the Government to issue order for grant of additional one increment to bailiffs, process servers and drivers with effect from 1.4.2003. The case of the bailiffs and process servers was considered by this court in Writ Petition Nos. 28532-533/2012 and as observed earlier, the learned single Judge, holding that bailiffs and process servers also carry out clerical work, directed the Government to consider their case afresh in the light of the judgment and the work they carry out. Insofar as drivers are concerned, it is not their case that they carry out any clerical work. The expression "Ministerial servant" or "Ministerial cadre or Ministerial staff" is defined in terms of Rule 8(29) of the KCSR. This provision states that "Ministerial Servant" means the Government servant whose duties are entirely clerical and any other class of service specially defined as such by Government. The petitioners could not and did not place any material on record to show that the drivers are also included in the category of Ministerial servants or are specially defined as such by the Government. The learned Government Advocate submits that Government at no point of time defined drivers as "Ministerial servants". In this view of the matter, the impugned letter/order cannot be faulted. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are dismissed.
