REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT EDUCATION DEPT PRI AND SEC M S BUILDING BENGALURU 560001 vs SRI SHIVANAND BHIMAPPA HELAVAR S/O BHIMAPPA SIDLINGAPPA HELAVAR AGE 61 YRS PETRIED BLOCK EDUCATION

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17059-DB
WP No. 103868 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020099302023




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD



TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT PETITION NO. 103868 OF 2023 (S-KAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
(PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION)
M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560001.




2. THE ADDL., COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
RODDA ROAD, DHARWAD-580008.


3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
HAVERI DISTRICT HAVERI-581110.


Digitally signed
by PRATIBHA M
PATIL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.11.12
12:30:40 +0530

4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA (A AND E),
PARK HOUSE ROAD,
BENGALORE- 560001.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

AND:

SRI. SHIVANAND BHIMAPPA HELAVAR S/O BHIMAPPA
SIDLINGAPPA HELAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RETRIED BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
SHIGGAON TALUK, HAVERI DISTRICT,
R/AT: GANDHINAGAR, BILAGI,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT- 587116
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17059-DB
WP No. 103868 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020099302023


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED
BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BELAGAVI BENCH IN APPLICATION NO.10090/2021 BY ORDER
DATED 05.11.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)


The State is before us, calling in question the order
dated 05.11.2022 passed by the Karnataka State

Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (‘the Tribunal’ for short), in
Application No.10090/2021.

2. Heard the learned HCGP Smt. Girija S. Hiremath
appearing for the petitioners-State and the learned counsel
Sri. Bhushan B. Kulkarni appearing for the respondent-
applicant.

3. The respondent-applicant joins the management of
SK Composite Junior College on 19.06.1988. It was an aided
institution and the respondent joins the service after a

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17059-DB
WP No. 103868 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020099302023


selection process initiated by the institution. The respondent
gets selected as an Assistant Teacher on 01.07.1988. The
issue is not with regard to the appointment of the
respondent. The institution was admitted to grant-in-aid
even before the appointment of the respondent. The
approval of the appointment of the respondent happens 10
years after the actual appointment. The appointment is on
19.06.1988 and the approval is on 01.07.1988. The claim of
the respondent was for payment of pension by counting the
service rendered by the respondent from 02.05.1989 to
05.05.1999. Having this been denied to the respondent, the
respondent knocks at the doors of the Tribunal. The Tribunal
passes the following order:
“3. The applicant further contended that on
19.06.1988 the management of SK Composite
Junior College / SK Girls High School, an aided
institution has issued a paper publication for
selection of Assistant Teacher in High School
section. That on 01.07.1998 the applicant got
selected as Assistant Teacher in High School
section. That on 02.11.1988 he was appointed for
duty as such in the pay scale of Rs.1,400-2,750/-.
On 23.11.1990 as per Annexure-A2 the order of
appointment was approved by the Dy. Director of
Public Instructions with effect from 02.05.1989.
The applicant was promoted as lecturer in English
at SK Composite Junior college on 14.06.1997.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17059-DB
WP No. 103868 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020099302023


The applicant further contended that in the year
1999 the applicant was selected as Head Master in
Government High School through Karnataka
Public Service Commission. That on 30.04.1999
as per Annexure-A4 the Commissioner for Public
Instruction, Bangalore has issued order of
appointment as Head Master. That on 05.05.1999
as per Annexure-A5 the applicant was relieved by
the Principal, SK Composite P.U. College, Talikot.
The applicant further contended that he reported
for duty at Government High School, Bilgi on
06.05.1999. That on 30.06.2019, he stood retired
from service as Block Education Officer. The
applicant further contended that the Accountant
General has issued pension payment order by
counting the qualifying service for the purpose of
pension only from 06.05.1999 as per Annexure-
A6. The applicant further contended that he had
requested the respondents to count the earlier
service rendered in the aided institution as per
annexure-A7 dated 15.10.2020. As per Annexure-
A8 dated 02.11.2020, the respondent No.2 has
issued an endorsement rejecting the claim of the
applicant on the ground that the applicant should
have made such an application within three years
for counting of service under Rule 224(b) of
KCSR.

4. The applicant further contended that this
Tribunal in identical circumstances has held in the
case of K.Thimmegouda VS. State and
another in A.No.1935/1989 decided on
04.01.1991, and V.H. Padmakshi Vs. State and
others in A.Nos.4377/1995 decided on
05.12.1996, and B.K. Nagaraja Rao Vs. State
and another in A.No.4934/2003 decided on
22.06.2012 holding that the service rendered in
an aided institution will count for purpose of
pension. The applicant further contended that the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P.No.4513/2019 decided on 15.12.2021 in the
case of H.Chandrashekar Vs. State and others
therein directed the respondents to extend the
benefit under unamended Rule 247-A of KCSR for

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17059-DB
WP No. 103868 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020099302023


counting of qualifying service by including his
entire service rendered in the aided institution,
and consequently to revise the pensionary
benefits. Therefore, in view of this, the applicant
is entitled for same relief on parity also.


5. The applicant also strongly contended
that per Government Order dated 10.03.1981, the
respondent No.1 has counted the service
rendered in an aided institution in the case of
H.M. Muniveeregowda a retired Head Master,
Mysugar High School, Mandya for the purpose of
pension. The said G.O. is also placed by the
applicant. On this ground, the applicant has
sought for allowing the application.


6. The respondents herein filed their
lengthy objection by contending that the
application is not maintainable in law and it is
required to be dismissed on the following grounds.

7. It is further contended that the applicant
had submitted a representation to respondent
No.2 requesting to count the earlier service
rendered by the applicant in the aided institution
as an Assistant Master as well as Lecturer in
English from 02.05.1989 to 05.05.1999 for the
purpose of qualifying service for pension. In
response to the representation submitted by the
applicant, the respondent No.2 has rightly
rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground
that application for counting of previous service
has to be applied within three years of
appointment or before 31.07.014 as the case may
be to the Government as per provisions of Rule
224-B Karnataka Civil Service Rules 1957. Hence,
the claim of the applicant is baseless, illegal and
misleading and same is liable to be rejected.

8. It is further contended that the
representation to count the previous service
rendered by him in an aided institution from
02.05.1989 to 05.05.1999 towards qualifying
service for pension has been rejected by this

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17059-DB
WP No. 103868 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020099302023


office i.e., respondent No.2 on the ground that he
has not submitted his representation within three
years or before 31.07.2014 as the case may be
from the date of joining to Government Service.
It is further contended that the applicant has
joined Government service on 06.05.1999. The
provision for counting of previous service for
pension purposes has been provided under Rule
224-B of the KCSR from 12.05.2006 vide G.O
dated 08.05.2006 and the last date for submitting
st
such application was extended till 31 July 2014
vide G.O dated 29.03.2014. Since the applicant
had ample time to submit his application for
counting of previous service and as per provisions
under this Rule, he ought to have submitted his
application before 31.07.2014. But the applicant
has submitted his representation on 15.10.2020
which is far beyond the prescribed last date for
applying for counting of previous service.
Therefore, he has not entitled for extend the
benefits.

9. It is further contended that the applicant
has relied upon the order passed by this Tribunal
in various order as placed by him are not
applicable to the present case. Per contra, the
respondents have contended that the
representation has been rejected in accordance
with law and there is no infirmity based on the
existing Rule and sought for dismissal of the
application.
In the light of the oral arguments, we
10.
have gone through the Rule relied by the
respondents it reads as follows:

Rule 224 B of the KCSR states that,
“Notwithstanding anything contained
in rules 219-A, 224-A, 235, 235-A,
235-B, 5(xxx) 248, 248-A, 248-AA,
252(b), 416, 417 every employee
desires to have benefit of counting
their previous service of additional
years as qualifying service for pension,
as the case may be under these rules

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17059-DB
WP No. 103868 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020099302023


shall make a request in writing to the
appointing Authority within three
years from the date of joining the
st
Government service or within 31 July
2014 as the case may be. No claim
made after the above specified time
limit shall be entertained by the
appointing authority”

11. On plain reading the above Rule 224-B of
KCSR, it is crystal clear that the Government
Servant notwithstanding anything contained in
rules and also provision mentioned in the Rule
224-B shall apply for benefit of counting their
previous service of additional years as qualifying
service for pension as the case may be within
three years from the date of joining the
st
Government service or within 31 July 2014. In
our opinion, the said Rule it is only directive in
nature not mandatory. It is settled law the
benefit of counting previous service of
Government employee shall be counted by the
respondents itself at any point of time and grant
statutory benefits like pension and other benefits
as provided in the Pension Rules. Merely if the
Rule 224-B of KCSR says that the Government
servant shall apply for benefit of qualify previous
service rendered by him on or before 31.05.2014.
The Government servant cannot lose his right to
seek benefit under the Rules unacted by the State
Government. In support of our view, we have
gone through the orders placed by the applicant in
A.No.1935/1989 in the case of K.Thimmegowda
Vs. State and another rendered by Principal
Bench of KSAT on 04.01.1991. The said
judgement is unchallenged by the respondents.
On reading the above said order, this Tribunal has
considered all the Government orders, accepted
the claim of the applicant Sri Timme Gowda and
extended the benefit similar benefit to Sri
Muniveera Gowda as per Annexure-A2, as per
the Government order dated 10.03.1981. The
said order was also implemented by the
respondents. In addition, as rightly contended by
the applicants, one K.Thimmegowda,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17059-DB
WP No. 103868 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020099302023


Smt.Y.H.Padmakshi, B.D.Nagaraja Rao have got
similar relief on parity also. It is pertinent to note
that the applicants have placed the judgments of
the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in
W.P.No.4513/2019 decided on 15.12.2021 in the
case of H.Chandrashekar Vs. State and others
wherein also, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
has allowed the application and quashed the
endorsement issued by the Government including
the order passed by this Tribunal and directed the
respondents to extend the benefit under
unamended Rule 247-A of KCSR for counting of
qualifying service by including his entire service
rendered in the aided institution, and to revise the
pensionary benefits to him with effect from the
date of retirement. It is pertinent to note that the
case on hand is a similar and identical as the
applicant was formerly working in an aided
institution and thereafter appointed by the KPSC.
Hence, sought for benefit of counting previous
service and also other statutory benefits. The
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
in the case of H Chandrashekar Vs. State and
others is similar one. Therefore, the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
is application to the case on hand.

12. It is also undisputed fact, as per the
Government order dated 10.03.1981, the
respondent No.1 counted the service rendered in
an aided institution in case of H.M.
Muniveeregowda, retired Head Master, Mysugar
High School, Mandya and the said G.O. is also
placed by the applicants. It is an undisputed fact
that now the Government/respondent cannot
discriminate the Government servants. The
Government shall treat each and every employee
in similar in nature and not to discriminate than at
any point of time. If any discrimination is made
by the Government, it amounts to violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On
this ground also, the application is liable to be
allowed.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17059-DB
WP No. 103868 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020099302023



13. So far as the objection statement is
concerned, it is only based on Rule 247-B. We
have also held the Government Rules and
notification, it is only in the form of directory in
nature and not mandatory. Therefore, we reject
the entire objection statement and accept the
case of the applicant. It is totally in violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We
accept the grounds of the application and proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER

1. The application is hereby allowed.


2. The respondents are hereby
directed to count the service rendered by
the applicant from 02.05.1989 to
05.05.1999 in an aided institution towards
qualifying service for pension.

3. The respondents are directed to
revise the pension and pensionary benefits
and to grant all consequential benefits to
the applicant within three months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.”


4. The Tribunal passes the order directing counting of
service of the respondent from 02.05.1989 to 05.05.1999,
which service he had rendered in the aided institution for the
purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits. The order does
not warrant any interference for the reason that, as per the
settled principle of law, the service rendered by any teacher
in the pre-grant period or the institution getting admitted by

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17059-DB
WP No. 103868 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020099302023


grant-in-aid shall be counted for the purpose of calculating
qualifying service for the purpose of payment of pension.


5. In the case at hand, the respondent stands on a
better footing. At the time when the respondent was
appointed, the institution was already admitted to grant-in-
aid. What remained was an approval of the appointment of
the respondent at the hands of the State, which comes about
after 10 years. The other ground that the learned High Court
Government Pleader would seek to project is that the
respondent has not made any application for counting the
service rendered in an aided institution for the purpose of
calculation of pension. The said submission is noted only to
be rejected. Merely because the respondent has not made an
application, the service rendered by the respondent would
not vanish into thin air.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17059-DB
WP No. 103868 of 2023


CNR: KAHC020099302023



6. In that light, there is no warrant of interference with
the order passed by the Tribunal. The petition filed by the
State stands rejected .
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed as not calling for adjudication.


Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE



Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE





PMP
CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 87