Karnataka HC Backdates Retired Lecturer’s Grant-In-Aid To 2011, Counts Pre-Grant Service For Pension Benefits

The petitioner, a retired Lecturer in Civil Engineering at D.V.S. Polytechnic College, challenged the State’s decision to admit his post to grant-in-aid only from 3 August 2017, rather than 29 January 2011—the date on which other staff posts at the institution were admitted to grant-in-aid.

His post had initially been left out while disciplinary proceedings were pending; those proceedings were later dropped, and he sought grant-in-aid from the date applicable to his colleagues.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the State to reconsider his claim from 29 January 2011 and pass appropriate orders within three months.

The State subsequently maintained the 3 August 2017 date and declined to count pre-grant service for service benefits, prompting the present petition.

The Court relied on its earlier order in W.P. No. 23266/2018 c/w W.P. No. 33139/2018, which held that employees exonerated in disciplinary proceedings were entitled to have their grant-in-aid cases considered from the date their colleagues’ posts were admitted to grant-in-aid.

It also applied the Division Bench’s decision in W.A. No. 2476/2015 c/w R.P. No. 415/2021, which held that pre-grant service may be counted for notional pay fixation and consequential pension and service benefits, but does not entitle employees to salary arrears or other monetary benefits from the State for the pre-grant period; salary liability for that period remains with the institution’s management.

The 2014 Acts were challenged in the petition, but the Court did not decide their validity.

The earlier writ order had specifically addressed whether the petitioner was entitled to grant-in-aid from the date applicable to the other staff and had directed reconsideration from 29 January 2011.

The State had not challenged that order, and the Court therefore held that it could not adopt a contrary effective date of 3 August 2017 in its subsequent decision.

Separately, applying the Division Bench’s ruling, the Court held that pre-grant service should be considered for notional pay fixation and consequential benefits, while the State remained liable for no salary arrears for the pre-grant period.

It directed the authorities to extend grant-in-aid to the petitioner’s post from 29 January 2011 and to reckon service from his appointment date for notional pay fixation and calculation of pension and other service benefits.

The latter consideration was to be completed within six months; the petition was disposed of.