01Facts
The petitioners, employees or former employees of private aided educational institutions, sought to have their service before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid counted for pay fixation, increments, seniority, pension and other consequential service benefits.
pp. 9–11 · ¶ 3–4After submitting a representation dated 10 September 2026, the petitioners filed this writ petition seeking consideration of their pre-grant service for those benefits.
pp. 9–11 · ¶ 3–402Issues
i.Whether the petitioners’ service before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid must be considered for pay fixation and consequential service and pensionary benefits.
p. 10 · ¶ 4ii.Whether the State is liable to pay salary or other monetary benefits for the period before the posts were admitted to grant-in-aid.
p. 11 · ¶ 403Law Applied
The Court applied the Division Bench’s decision in W.A. No. 2476 of 2015 and connected matters, which affirmed the decision in W.P. No. 21216 of 2014 striking down the 2014 Act.
p. 11 · ¶ 4Under the rule stated at paragraph 61 of the Division Bench judgment, pre-grant service is to be considered for notional pay fixation as of the date the post is admitted to grant-in-aid and for consequential benefits, including pension and other service benefits. The State is not liable for salary arrears or other monetary benefits for the pre-grant period; under Annexure I to the 1999 Rules, the institution’s management remains responsible for salary and benefits until grant-in-aid admission.
p. 11 · ¶ 404Reasoning
The Court found the petitioners similarly placed to the employees covered by the Division Bench ruling.
pp. 11–12 · ¶ 4–5It therefore extended the same treatment to them: their pre-grant service must be considered for the specified service benefits, subject to the limitation that the State bears no liability for salary or other monetary benefits accrued before grant-in-aid admission.
pp. 11–12 · ¶ 4–505Holding
The writ petition was allowed.
pp. 12–13, order clauses (i)–(iii)The Court issued a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners’ service from their initial appointments, before admission of their posts to grant-in-aid, 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 authorities were directed to complete the exercise within six weeks and report compliance to the Registry.
pp. 12–13, order clauses (i)–(iii)Original Court PDF
KRISHNA RAMAPPA NEERALGIvsTHE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
