Karnataka High Court
Education LawAdministrative and Public Law

Government must promptly determine eligibility for UGC advance increments and grant benefits from the eligibility date.

DR SREE KRISHNA BHARADWAJ H S/O H RAGHAVENDRACHAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 28, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Government must promptly determine eligibility for UGC advance increments and grant benefits from the eligibility date.. DR SREE KRISHNA BHARADWAJ H S/O H RAGHAVENDRACHAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner completed his LL.M. in 2015 and was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the University’s Department of Law on 1 October 2018.

Source reference: pp. 3–7

He sought two non-compounded advance increments under Regulation 19.1(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018, by representation dated 3 September 2020.

Source reference: pp. 3–7

The University stated that the State had sought clarification from the UGC and that it would act after receiving clarification; the State likewise submitted that clarification remained pending.

Source reference: pp. 3–7

The petitioner then sought mandamus for the increments, pay revision and arrears.

Source reference: pp. 3–7
02

Issues

1. Whether the petitioner’s LL.M. qualification entitled him to two non-compounded increments under Regulation 19.1(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018

Source reference: pp. 4–5, 7–8

2. Whether the State could be directed to decide the petitioner’s claim while the requested UGC clarification remained pending

Source reference: pp. 5–8
03

Law Applied

Regulation 19.1(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018, as set out in the judgment, provides for two non-compounded increments at the entry level for the relevant postgraduate qualification.

Source reference: pp. 4–5

The Court also considered the State Government’s order concerning incentives for higher qualifications and the subsequent request for UGC clarification; it did not identify or rely on any judicial precedent.

Source reference: pp. 5–8
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner had obtained his LL.M. before appointment and had been awaiting a decision on his request since 2020.

Source reference: pp. 7–9

It observed that Regulation 19.1(iii) entitled him to the increments, but also considered the State’s position that clarification had been sought and the University’s reliance on that pending clarification.

Source reference: pp. 7–9

Rather than grant the increments directly, the Court directed the Government to make a decision promptly and communicate it to the University, taking account of the potential arrears and consequential financial burden.

Source reference: pp. 7–9
05

Holding

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Government to decide whether the petitioner was entitled to the increments under Regulation 19.1(iii) and complete the exercise within six weeks.

If found eligible, he was to receive the benefit from the date he became eligible, together with the consequential benefits.

Source reference: pp. 8–9
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.

the Act (alias, unresolved)1

Section 19
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

DR SREE KRISHNA BHARADWAJ H S/O H RAGHAVENDRACHARvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · September 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment