01Facts
The petitioners, teaching and non-teaching employees of aided educational institutions, sought recognition of their service from their initial appointment dates, including service rendered before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid, for pay fixation and consequential service benefits.
pp. 19–20 · ¶ 3–5They relied on the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in W.A. No. 2476 of 2015 and connected matters, dated 24 July 2026, and had submitted representations to the authorities.
pp. 19–20 · ¶ 3–5The State submitted that the relief available was governed by paragraph 61 of that appellate judgment.
p. 21 · ¶ 702Issues
i.1. Whether service rendered before a post’s admission to grant-in-aid must be reckoned for notional pay fixation and consequential benefits, including pensionary benefits.
pp. 19–21 · ¶ 3–5, 7–8ii.2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to salary arrears or other monetary benefits from the State for the pre-grant period.
p. 22 · ¶ 803Law Applied
The Court applied the clarification in paragraph 61 of the judgment in W.A. No. 2476 of 2015 and connected matters, which confined the issue to recognition of non-grant service for pay fixation and consequential service benefits.
p. 22 · ¶ 8Under that rule, the service rendered before admission of a post to grant-in-aid is to be counted for notional pay fixation as at the date of admission and for consequential benefits, including pension; however, the State is not liable for salary arrears or other monetary benefits for the pre-grant period.
p. 22 · ¶ 8The Court also noted that Annexure I to the Rules, 1999 places responsibility for salary and other benefits until grant-in-aid admission on the institution’s management.
p. 22 · ¶ 804Reasoning
The Court treated paragraph 61 of the appellate judgment as governing the petitioners’ claims.
pp. 21–23 · ¶ 7–9Because that judgment recognised pre-grant service for notional fixation and consequential benefits, the petitioners could receive those benefits on the same basis.
pp. 21–23 · ¶ 7–9But the distinction drawn in paragraph 61 between service recognition and payment liability meant that the State could not be required to pay pre-grant salary arrears.
pp. 21–23 · ¶ 7–9The Court accordingly directed the specified respondents to reckon service from the petitioners’ appointment dates for notional pay fixation and calculation of pension and other service benefits.
pp. 21–23 · ¶ 7–905Holding
The petition was allowed and disposed of.
pp. 22–23 · ¶ 8–9Respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 6 were directed to reckon the petitioners’ service from their respective appointment dates, including pre-grant service, for notional pay fixation and calculation of pension and other service benefits.
pp. 22–23 · ¶ 8–9The authorities were directed to complete that consideration within six months; the relief did not include pre-grant salary arrears or other monetary benefits from the State.
pp. 22–23 · ¶ 8–9Original Court PDF
SRI. MUTTU VARADHA RAJANvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
