Karnataka HC Directs Pre-Grant Service Of 26 Aided-School Employees Considered For Pay And Pension, But Bars State Back Pay for That Period

The petitioners, employees or former employees of private aided educational institutions, sought recognition of service rendered from their respective initial appointment dates, including service before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid. They claimed that this service should count for pay fixation, increments, seniority, pension and other consequential service benefits.

The petitioners relied on the Division Bench’s judgment in W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters, dated 24 July 2026, and sought consideration of their representations in light of that ruling. With the parties’ consent, the High Court took up the petition for final disposal, finding the issue covered by the Division Bench judgment.

The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters (24 July 2026), which confirmed the earlier decision in W.P. No. 21216/2014 and connected matters (10 July 2015) striking down the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay, Pension and Other Benefit) Act, 2014, insofar as it excluded pre-grant service from relevant benefits.

Under paragraph 61 of the Division Bench judgment, pre-grant service is to be counted for notional pay fixation as of the date the post is admitted to grant-in-aid and for consequential service and pension benefits; however, the State is not liable for salary arrears or other monetary benefits for the pre-grant period. The management remains responsible for salary and benefits during that period under Annexure I to the Rules, 1999.

The Court found that the petitioners’ grievance was squarely covered by the Division Bench ruling and that they were similarly placed to the employees who had obtained relief in that case.

Applying paragraph 61, the Court directed that their pre-grant service be considered for the specified service benefits, subject to the ruling’s limitation that such service does not create a right to claim pre-grant salary arrears or other monetary benefits from the State.

The Court issued a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners’ service from their respective initial appointment dates, including pre-grant service, for pay fixation or refixation, increments, seniority, pension and other consequential service benefits in accordance with paragraph 61 of the Division Bench judgment. The exercise was to be completed within six weeks.