01Facts
The petitioners, 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.
pp. 5–6They relied on a representation dated 31 August 2026 and on the decisions in W.P. No. 21216/2014 and W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters.
pp. 5–6The Single Judge had struck down the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay, Pension and Other Benefit) Act, 2014, insofar as it excluded pre-grant service; the Division Bench affirmed that decision on 24 July 2026.
p. 7The petitioners sought a mandamus applying that ruling to their service.
pp. 5–602Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioners’ service before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid must be considered for fixation or refixation of pay and consequential service benefits.
pp. 6–8ii.2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary arrears or other monetary benefits from the State for the pre-grant period.
p. 803Law Applied
The Division Bench’s ruling in W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters, particularly paragraph 61, governed the dispute. It held that pre-grant service is to be considered for notional pay fixation as on 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 to pay salary arrears or other monetary benefits for the pre-grant period.
pp. 7–8Annexure I to the Karnataka Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1999 places responsibility for salary and benefits during that period on the institution’s management.
pp. 7–804Reasoning
The Court found the petitioners similarly situated to the employees covered by the Division Bench ruling.
pp. 7–9Applying that binding determination, it directed the authorities to take their service from initial appointment into account for pay fixation and consequential benefits, while preserving the distinction between such notional recognition and monetary liability for the pre-grant period.
pp. 7–905Holding
The writ petition was allowed.
p. 9The Court issued a mandamus directing the respondents 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.
p. 9The exercise was ordered to be completed within six weeks.
p. 9Original Court PDF
NAGARAJvsTHE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
