Karnataka HC Dismisses State, University Appeals, Leaving Order To Reconsider 3 Workers’ Old-Pension Claims In Force

The University regularized the private respondents, former daily-wage employees, with effect from 1997 and 1998, corresponding to completion of ten years’ service.

Its order dated 1 July 2017 stated that they were entitled to consequential benefits from those dates.

The State maintained that the respondents were covered by the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (NDCPS), applicable to new entrants from 1 April 2006, and that the University had acted without prior Finance Department concurrence.

The respondents challenged the State’s communication and consequential endorsement in W.P. No. 28601/2024.

The Single Judge set them aside and directed the Government to consider the University’s proposal; the respondents were left to make a separate representation concerning back wages and other unextended benefits.

The State and University appealed. Their appeals were filed 422 and 579 days late, respectively.

The appeals were brought under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

The Court considered the Government Order dated 31 March 2006, under which the NDCPS applied to new entrants from 1 April 2006.

The Court upheld the Single Judge’s reasoning that the respondents’ entitlement, founded on regularization effective from 1997 and 1998, could not be defeated by treating them as entrants after 1 April 2006; it also noted the absence of a State response to the University’s 1 July 2017 order and the prior grant of old-pension benefits to similarly situated employees.

The Court found that the Single Judge had treated the respondents’ regularization dates as the basis for their service benefits and had correctly distinguished them from new entrants joining after 1 April 2006.

It also relied on examples of similarly situated employees who had received old-pension benefits and noted that the State did not dispute those instances.

The State’s objection that Finance Department concurrence was required did not displace the Single Judge’s conclusions; the University had promptly communicated its 2017 order, and the State’s appeal did not identify any response to it.

The Court further found no sufficient grounds in the affidavits supporting either application for condonation of delay.

The Single Judge’s directions—including setting aside the State’s communication and consequential endorsement and requiring the Government to consider the University’s proposal—therefore remained in force.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.