Karnataka HC Orders ₹26.9 Lakh Arrears Plus Interest For Exonerated Professor, Makes Officials Personally Liable ₹5,000/Day If 30-Day Deadline Is Missed

The petitioner, a retired Professor at D.G.M. Ayurvedic Medical College, was prevented from joining his transferred post in December 2016.

A departmental inquiry into alleged unauthorised absence found the charge not proved; the Government’s order dated 4 September 2023 accepted that finding and recorded his entitlement to the benefits due for the relevant period.

The authorities subsequently recommended release of ₹26,90,373 in salary arrears, but the State Government’s communication dated 17 February 2026 directed the matter to be reconsidered, including whether the period should be treated as unauthorised absence.

The petitioner challenged that communication and sought release of the arrears with interest.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which it may review administrative action and grant appropriate relief.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision. Its reasoning rests on the case-specific principle that, where the competent authority has accepted an inquiry report and determined an employee’s entitlement, the administration cannot reopen that determination without justification after acting on it and repeatedly recommending payment.

The Court noted that the inquiry report found the absence charge unproved and that the Government’s order of 4 September 2023 accepted that finding and recognised the petitioner’s entitlement to applicable benefits.

Subsequent correspondence consistently sought approval to release the arrears, indicating that the determination had been treated as final and steps had been taken to implement it.

The impugned communication nevertheless sought to revisit the same matter, including by relying on the petitioner’s status as an employee of an aided college and the alleged inapplicability of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules.

In the Court’s view, this was an unjustified reversal of the administration’s prior position and another attempt to avoid payment of an established entitlement.

It directed Respondents 1 and 2 to pay the amount due to the petitioner within 30 days, together with all interest accrued thereon.

If they failed to comply within that period, each respondent would be personally liable to pay the petitioner ₹5,000 per day for the delay.