01Facts
The petitioners, employees or a retired employee of aided educational institutions, sought to have their service during the pre-grant period counted from their initial appointments until their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid.
pp. 6–7They claimed that this service should be considered for pay fixation, seniority, increments, pension and other consequential service benefits, relying on earlier decisions including W.A. No. 4788 of 2010.
pp. 6–7The State submitted that it was contemplating a challenge to the decision in W.A. No. 2476 of 2015 and connected matters, but that decision had not been stayed.
p. 802Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioners’ pre-grant service could be considered for pay fixation, pension and other consequential service benefits in light of the Division Bench’s decision in W.A. No. 2476 of 2015 and connected matters.
pp. 7–9ii.2. Whether the State should be directed to consider the petitioners’ representations for those benefits.
p. 903Law Applied
As stated in that paragraph, service during the non-grant period may be taken into account for notional pay fixation as at the date the post is admitted to grant-in-aid, and for consequential benefits such as pension and other service benefits; however, employees are not entitled to arrears of salary or other monetary benefits from the State for the pre-grant period.
pp. 8–9The quoted passage also refers to Annexure-I of the Rules, 1999, under which the institution’s management bears responsibility for salary and other benefits until the post is admitted to grant-in-aid.
pp. 8–904Reasoning
The Court noted that the Division Bench decision had not been stayed, notwithstanding the State’s submission that it contemplated challenging that decision.
p. 8Applying paragraph 61, the Court directed the State to consider the petitioners’ requests and extend any benefits permissible under that ruling.
p. 9It did not itself determine each petitioner’s individual entitlement or grant pre-grant salary arrears.
p. 905Holding
The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioners’ representations and extend permissible benefits in accordance with paragraph 61 of the Division Bench decision.
p. 9The consideration was to be completed within six months from receipt of a copy of the order.
p. 9Original Court PDF
SRI DEVARAJA MvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
