THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SRI MURALIDHAR HANAMANTH RAO KULKARNI S/O HANAMANTH RAO KULKARNI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT PETITION NO.102825 OF 2025 (S-KAT)


BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

AND:

1. SRI. MURALIDHAR HANAMANTH RAO KULKARNI
S/O. HANAMANTH RAO KULKARNI,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RETIRED PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
O/O. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, SHIRAHATTI,
RESIDING AT SURANAGI,
LAKSHMESHWAR TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT – 582 116.

2. SRI. SOMAPPA KAREPPA BHAJAMMANAVAR
S/O. KAREPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RETIRED GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SECRETARY GRADE – 1,
O/O. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, MUNDARAGI,
GADAG DISTRICT,









Digitally signed
by PRATIBHA
M PATIL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.10.17
15:45:02 +0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

RESIDING AT WARD NO.17, SWAMY
VIVEKANANDANAGAR,
MUNDARAGI TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT – 582 118.

3. SRI. A.Y. DODDAMANI S/O. YAQUBSAHEB
(ABDUL KHADIRSAHEB YAQBSAHEB DODDAMANI),
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RETIRED ASSISTANT
SECRETARY ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BELLARY,
RESIDING AT C/O MEHBOOBSAB,
JOOJAGAR ONI, BETGERI, GADAG TALUK
AND DISTRICT – 582 102.

4. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR I. CHITRALU
S/O. ISHWARAPPA CHITRALU,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RETIRED GRAMA PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
O/O. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, RON,
GADAG DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT DOPPADAHALLI, KOTTUR TALUK,
VIJAYANAGARA – 583 134.

5. SRI. MEHBOOBSAB ALLABAKASH DANKED
S/O. ALLABAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RETIRED GRAMA
PANCHAYAT SECRETARY O/O THE EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT, GADAG,
RESIDING AT JOOJAGAR ONI, BETGERI,
GADAG, TALUK & DISTRICT – 582 102.

6. SRI. HANAMANT RAMAPPA YATNAHALLI
S/O. RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RETIRED GRAMA PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
O/O THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, SHIRAHATTI,
GADAG DISTRICT, R/A & POST: BALE HOSUR,
LAKSHMESHWAR TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT – 582 116.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

7. SRI. RAMANAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDA
MUDDIGOUDRA,
S/O. SHIVANAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RETIRED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
O/O THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, RON,
RESIDING AT HOSARITTI,
HAVERI TALUK DISTRICT.

8. SRI. MOHAMMAD HANIF BABASAB MULLANNAVAR
S/O. BABASAB,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RETIRED GRAMA
PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
O/O. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
GADAG, RESIDING AT MULLA ONI, DESAIBAN,
LAKSHMESHWAR,
GADAG DISTRICT – 582 116.
9. SRI. LAKSHMAN Y. TALWAR
S/O. YAMANAPPA TALAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RETIRED GRAMA
PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
O/O. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
MUNDARGI, GADAG DISTRICT, RESIDING AT
CHAWADAL, SHIRAHATTI TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT – 582 120.

10. SRI. MUDAKANAGOUDA VENKANAGOUDA BANDI
S/O. VENKANAGOUDA BANDI,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RETIRED GRAMA PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
O/O THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, GADAG,
RESIDING AT SAMBAPUR,
GADAG TALUK & DISTRICT – 582 115.

11. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT,
GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG - 582 101.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

12. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BELLARY DISTRICT,
BELLARY - 583 101.

13. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, SHIRAHATTI,
GADAG DISTRICT - 582 120.

14. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, MUNDARAGI,
GADAG DISTRICT - 582 118.
15. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, RON,
GADAG DISTRICT – 582 209.
16. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, GADAG DISTRICT,
GADAG - 582 101.
…RESPONDENTS

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 AT BELAGAVI IN
APPLICATION NO.11243-11252/2021 BY ORDER DATED
17.08.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE – A AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

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


1. The State is before the Court calling in question the
order of the Tribunal dated 17.08.2022 in Application
No.11243-11252/2021.


2. Heard Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the State/petitioner.


3. The Tribunal grants relief to the
applicants/respondent Nos.1 to 10 interpreting Rule 247-A of
the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Rules’, for short) as it stood on the date of retirement of
each one of them.


4. The learned HCGP, Smt. Girija Hiremath, would
submit that the Tribunal has fallen in error in interpreting Rule
247-A of the Rules and has granted such relief which goes
beyond the maximum qualifying service for the maximum
pensionable service and would submit that the order is
erroneous.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025


5. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
No.16582/2023 connected with Writ Petition Nos.13427/2022,
18490/2022, 20687/2022, 4099/2023, 12931/2023 and
26337/2023 disposed on 31.10.2025 has considered this very
aspect and has allowed the applications filed by the
Government Servants and has dismissed the applications filed
by the State against the orders of the Tribunal which had
passed identical orders interpreting Rule 247-A of the Rules and
granting them additional qualifying service as is obtaining
under Rule 247-A of the Rules. The Division Bench has held as
follows:
“13. Our answer to the above point would be in
the negative for the following reasons:


(a) The respondents would be entitled for adding
qualifying service in terms of Rule 247A of the
KCSRs as it stood on the date of their retirement
i.e., as on the date of fixation of their pension and
pensionary benefits.


(b) It is not in dispute that the respondents were
initially appointed as daily wagers/stipendiary
graduates and subsequently were regularised or
absorbed into government service. It is also an
admitted fact that the respondents would be
entitled for the benefit of adding additional
qualifying service in terms of Rule 247A of the
KCSRs. However, the question is, whether the
respondents would be entitled for the benefit of
adding qualifying service in terms of Rule 247A of

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

the KCSRs as it stood on their date of
appointment.


(c) Rule 247A of the KCSRs provides for adding
qualifying service to persons recruited after
completing the age of 30 years, a period equal to
the difference between the age as on their date of
birth immediately preceding the date of direct
appointment and 30 years, subject to a maximum
of two years. In terms of Notification dated
12.07.1978, Rule 247A of the KCSRs was
amended and the said amendment provided for
adding of qualifying service of maximum of eight
years. Again, under Notification dated 04.11.2004,
Rule 247A was amended reducing adding of
qualifying service from eight years to four years.
Thereafter, under Notification dated 15.02.2012,
Rule 247A was further amended to reduce adding
of qualifying service to two years from four years.
In 1978, when adding of maximum period of eight
years of qualifying service was provided, the age
of superannuation of a government servant was 55
years. When the said qualifying service was
reduced to four years by amendment in the year
2004, the State increased the age of
superannuation to 58 years, and as on the date of
amendment in the year 2012 when adding of
qualifying service was reduced to two years, the
age of superannuation was increased to 60 years.
Thus, adding of qualifying service relates to the
age of superannuation so as to make the
appointees who are appointed subsequent to
completion of 30 years on par with that of persons
who are appointed prior to the age of 30 years.


(d) Rule 6 of the KCSRs subsequent to amendment by
Notification dated 30.01.2014 reads as follows:

“6. The claim of a Government servant to
pay and allowances, including traveling
allowances, is regulated by the rules in force at
the time, at which the pay and allowances are

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

earned; to leave, by the rules in force at the
time leave is applied for and granted and to
pension, by the rules in force at the time when
the Government servant retires or is discharged
from the service of Government.”


(e) Under amendment Notification dated 30.01.2014,
the words and figures “ Subject to the provisions
relating to protection of conditions of service, if
any, under Section 115 of the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956” were omitted from
Rule-6 of the KCSRs. Rule 6 of the KCSRs fixes the
date of entitlement of a government servant to
pay and allowance; to leave; and to pension. The
claim of a Government servant under above Rule 6
could be dissected into three parts:


(i) to pay and allowances, including traveling
allowances, is regulated by the rules in force
at the time, at which the pay and allowances
are earned;


(ii) to leave, is regulated by the rules in force at
the time leave is applied for and granted;
and


(iii) to pension, is regulated by the rules in force
at the time when the Government servant
retires or is discharged from the service of
Government.

In other words, the above Rule specifies or
regulates the pay and allowances, leave and
pension of a government servant in terms of the
Rules which exists as on the date of earning or
retirement. The above Rule aptly makes it clear
that a government servant, on retirement, would
be entitled for pension in terms of Rules in force as
on the date of retirement of such government
servant.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025


(f) In the instant case, adding of qualifying service
under Rule 247A of the KCSRs is for the purpose
of determining the qualifying service for pension
and pensionary benefits. The pension, in terms of
Rule 6, would accrue to a government servant on
his retirement, and in terms of Rule 6, such
pension shall be determined on the basis of the
Rules in force at the time of retirement of such
government servant. Therefore, the respondents
would be entitled for the benefit of adding of
qualifying service in terms of Rule 247A of the
KCSRs as it stood on the date of their retirement
and not as on the date of their appointment.


(g) The learned counsel for the respondents contend
that right to pension accrued to them as on the
date of their appointment and as they had
acquired the said right and the said right having
been vested in them could not have been taken
away by subsequent amendment. As held by us, in
terms of Rule 6 of the KCSRs, pension and
pensionary benefits would accrue to a government
servant as on the date of his/her retirement and
pension and pensionary benefits shall be
determined in terms of the Rules existing as on
the date of their retirement.


(h) Learned counsel for the respondents also
contended that service condition which existed as
on the date of appointment of the respondents
could not have been altered to their disadvantage
and they would be entitled for service condition
which existed as on the date of their appointment.
The said contention is unsustainable and cannot be
accepted. The relationship of the petitioner and
the respondents is that of employer and employee
and the respondents are governed by service rules
and statues insofar as the service conditions and
other benefits are concerned. The relationship of
the employer and employee in the instant case is
statutory in nature and not a contractual one. It is

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

settled position of law that service condition of an
employee could be altered at any time. But such
alteration of service condition shall not take away
the accrued or vested right. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in Chairman, Railway Board & Others v. C.R.
Rangadhamaiah & Others , (1997) 6 SCC 623 , was
examining the statutory notifications under which
the percentage of running allowance to the
pensioners of Indian Railway Establishment, was
reduced from 55% to 45% retrospectively. While
considering the same, at paragraphs 16, 17, 18,
19 and 20, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“16. It is no doubt true that once a person joins
service under the Government the relationship
between him and the Government is in the nature
of status rather than contractual and the terms of
his service while he is in employment are governed
by statute or statutory rules, which may be
unilaterally altered without the consent of the
employees. It has been so held by this Court
in Roshan Lal Tandon [AIR 1967 SC 1889 : (1968)
1 SCR 185 : (1968) 1 LLJ 576] and State of
J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa [(1974) 1 SCC 19 : 1974
SCC (L&S) 49 : (1974) 1 SCR 771] (SCR at pp.
779, 780 : SCC p. 29, para 16). It may, however,
be mentioned that in Roshan Lal Tandon [AIR 1967
SC 1889 : (1968) 1 SCR 185 : (1968) 1 LLJ 576]
the petitioner was invoking his rights under the
contract of service and the said contention was
rejected by the Court with the observation:

“We are therefore of the opinion that the
petitioner has no vested contractual right in
regard to the terms of his service and that the
counsel for the petitioner has been unable to
make good his submission on this aspect of the
case.”

17. In B.S. Vadera [AIR 1969 SC 118 : (1968)
3 SCR 575 : (1970) 1 LLJ 499] it has been held
that the rules under the proviso to Article 309 have
effect subject to the provisions of the Act made by

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

the appropriate legislature under the main part of
Article 309, if the appropriate legislature has
passed an Act under Article 309 and in the absence
of any Act of the appropriate legislature on the
matter the rules made under the proviso to Article
309 are to have full effect both prospectively and
retrospectively. Since the power of the appropriate
legislature to enact a law under Article 309 has to
be exercised subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, the power to make rules under the
proviso to Article 309 has to be exercised subject
to the provisions of the Constitution. The Court
has, therefore, said:

“… Apart from the limitations, pointed out
above, there is none other, imposed by the
proviso to Article 309, regarding the ambit of
the operation of such rules. In other words, the
rules, unless they can be impeached on grounds
such as breach of Part III, or any other
constitutional provision, must be enforced, if
made by the appropriate authority.”(p. 585)

18. This means that even though the President,
in exercise of his power under the proviso to Article
309, can make rules which may have prospective
or retrospective operation, the said rules may be
open to challenge on the ground of violation of the
provisions of the Constitution, including the
Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the
Constitution.

19. In Triloki Nath Khosa [(1974) 1 SCC 19 :
1974 SCC (L&S) 49 : (1974) 1 SCR 771] rules had
been framed altering the criterion of eligibility for
promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to
the post of Executive Engineer and the same were
challenged on the ground of retrospectivity by the
Assistant Engineers who were in service on the
date of making of these rules. Rejecting the said
contention, this Court said: (SCC pp. 28-29, para
16)

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

“16. … It is wrong to characterise the
operation of a service rule as retrospective for
the reason that it applies to existing employees.
A rule which classifies such employees for
promotional purposes, undoubtedly operates on
those who entered service before the framing of
the rule but it operates in futuro, in the sense
that it governs the future right of promotion of
those who are already in service. The impugned
rules do not recall a promotion already made or
reduce a pay scale already granted. They
provide for a classification by prescribing a
qualitative standard, the measure of that
standard being educational attainment. Whether
a classification founded on such a consideration
suffers from a discriminatory vice is another
matter which we will presently consider but
surely, the rule cannot first be assumed to be
retrospective and then be struck down for the
reason that it violates the guarantee of equal
opportunity by extending its arms over the past.
If rules governing conditions of service cannot
ever operate to the prejudice of those who are
already in service, the age of superannuation
should have remained immutable and schemes
of compulsory retirement in public interest
ought to have foundered on the rock of
retroactivity. But such is not the implication of
service rules nor is it their true description to
say that because they affect existing employees
they are retrospective.”

20. It can, therefore, be said that a rule which
operates in futuro so as to govern future rights of
those already in service cannot be assailed on the
ground of retroactivity as being violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution, but a rule which seeks to
reverse from an anterior date a benefit which has
been granted or availed of, e.g., promotion or pay
scale, can be assailed as being violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates
retrospectively.”


(i) In the instant case, no accrued right or vested
right of respondents is taken away since, in terms

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

of Rule 6 of the KCSRs, the right to pension would
accrue to the respondents in terms of the Rules in
force at the time when a government servant
retires.


(j) The Tribunal under the impugned orders failed to
properly appreciate Rule 6 of the KCSRs. The
Tribunal is not correct in observing that under Rule
6, it is only aspects such as nature of pension
disbursement, such as commutation, manner of
disbursement etc. that are based on the rules
prevailing at the time of retirement and not the
substantive aspects leading to pension
determination such as the service qualifying for
pension. It is to be noted here that the qualifying
service is not determined at the time of
appointment of a person, but is determined only at
the time of grant of pension. Since during the
period of service in government, a government
servant might have suffered punishment and
might have absented himself from duty or any
other unforeseen circumstances might have made
him to remain out of service which shall have to be
excluded while determining the qualifying service,
which exercise shall have to be carried out as on
the date of determining the pension or pensionary
benefits of a retiring government servant.
Therefore, qualifying service for pension could not
be determined as on the date of appointment of
government servant.

14. In the light of the above discussion, we
hold that the respondents would be entitled for the
benefit of adding qualifying service in terms of Rule
247A of the KCSRs as it stood as on the date of
retirement of each of the respondents.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

15. For the reasons recorded above, the writ
petitions of the State deserve to be allowed. Hence,
the following:

ORDER


(i) The Writ Petition Nos.16582/2023,
13427/2022, 18490/2022, 20687/2022,
4099/2023, 12931/2023 and
26337/2023 are allowed in part.


(ii) The orders passed in Application
Nos.5189-5200/2021 (dated
28.03.2022), Application No.1005/2018
C/w 7627/2018 (dated 24.09.2020),
Application No.4534/2021 (dated
20.12.2021), Application No.462/2021
(dated 05.01.2022), Application
No.4962/2021 (dated 21.04.2022),
Application Nos.1899-2017/2022 (dated
22.12.2022) and Application Nos.5124-
5173/2021 (dated 01.12.2022) are
modified;


(iii) The petitioner-State authorities are
directed to grant additional qualifying
service to the respondents in terms of
Rule 247A of the KCSRs as it stood on
the date of retirement of each of the
respondents for the purpose of pension
and pensionary benefits.


(iv) In view of the above order, on refixation
of pension and pensionary benefits,
recovery if any shall not be effected.


6. In the light of the issue standing completely
answered by the Co-ordinate Bench, the order of the Tribunal
would not warrant any interference, as it has not warranted

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16938-DB
WP No. 102825 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020067602025

any interference in the hands of the Coordinate Bench on
identical terms.

Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.


Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE






kmv
CT: ASC