Karnataka HC Directs Authorities To Count Aided-School Staff’s Pre-Grant Service For Pay And Pension, Without State Salary Arrears

The petitioners, current and 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 service benefits.

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

After submitting a representation dated 31 August 2026, they petitioned for directions to the State authorities to grant the claimed benefits.

The matter was disposed of at the preliminary-hearing stage, with the parties’ consent, on the basis that the issue was covered by the Division Bench decision.

The Court applied the Division Bench’s decision in W.A. No. 2476 of 2015 and connected matters, which confirmed the decision in W.P. No. 21216 of 2014 striking down the 2014 Act insofar as it excluded pre-grant service from relevant benefits.

Under paragraph 61 of the Division Bench judgment, pre-grant service is to be considered 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; however, the State is not liable for salary arrears or other monetary benefits for that period.

Annexure I to the 1999 Rules places responsibility for salary and benefits during the non-grant period on the institution’s management.

The Court found the petitioners similarly placed to the employees covered by the Division Bench ruling.

It therefore applied that ruling to their claim, directing consideration of their service from initial appointment for pay fixation or refixation and consequential benefits, including increments, seniority, pension and retirement benefits.

The relief remained subject to the Division Bench’s limitation: the State would not be required to pay salary arrears or other monetary benefits for the pre-grant period.

The Court issued a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners’ pre-grant service for fixation or refixation of pay, increments, seniority, pensionary and retirement benefits, and other consequential service benefits, in accordance with paragraph 61 of the Division Bench judgment.

The exercise was to be completed within six weeks, with compliance reported to the Registry.