Karnataka HC Directs Authorities To Consider Aided-School Staff’s Pre-Grant Service For Pay, Pension And Seniority; No State Arrears For That Period

In brief

The question

1. Whether service rendered by employees before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid must be considered for pay fixation and consequential service and pensionary benefits

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners’ service from their initial appointments, before grant-in-aid, for fixation or refixation of pay, increments, seniority, pensionary and other consequential service benefits, in accordance with paragraph 61 of the Division Bench judgment.

It also directed

The authorities were directed to complete the exercise within six weeks and report compliance to the Registry.

01Facts

The petitioners, employees or former employees of aided educational institutions, sought recognition of their service before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid for pay fixation, increments, seniority, pension and other consequential benefits.

pp. 5–7, paras 3–4

They relied on the judgment in W.P. No. 21216/2014, which struck down the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay, Pension and Other Benefit) Act, 2014, and the Division Bench judgment affirming it in W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters.

pp. 5–7, paras 3–4

After making a representation dated 31 August 2026, they sought directions from the High Court to extend those benefits to them.

pp. 5–7, paras 3–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether service rendered by employees before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid must be considered for pay fixation and consequential service and pensionary benefits

p. 6, para 4

ii.2. Whether the petitioners, as similarly placed employees, were entitled to a direction requiring the respondent authorities to extend those benefits in accordance with the Division Bench judgment

pp. 7–8, paras 5 and order

03Law Applied

The Court applied the Division Bench’s ruling in W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters, which affirmed the decision in W.P. No. 21216/2014 striking down the 2014 Act.

pp. 6–7, para 4

As clarified by the Division Bench, service during the non-grant period is to be counted for notional pay fixation as at the date the post is admitted to grant-in-aid and for consequential benefits, including pension and other service benefits.

pp. 6–7, para 4, quoting Division Bench judgment para 61

The State is not liable for salary arrears or other monetary benefits for the pre-grant period; under Annexure I to the Rules, 1999, responsibility for salary and benefits during that period remains with the institution’s management.

pp. 6–7, para 4, quoting Division Bench judgment para 61

04Reasoning

The petitioners’ claim fell within the issue already decided by the Division Bench: whether non-grant service must be reckoned for pay fixation and consequential benefits.

pp. 6–8, paras 4–5 and order

The Court found them similarly placed and extended the Division Bench’s clarification to them.

pp. 6–8, paras 4–5 and order

That clarification permits recognition of pre-grant service for notional fixation and consequential benefits, while leaving responsibility for pre-grant salary with the management and excluding claims against the State for arrears for that period.

pp. 6–8, paras 4–5 and order