Karnataka HC Orders Pre-Grant Service Considered For Six Aided-College Employees’ Pension And Pay, Not Salary Arrears

The six petitioners, employees or former employees of private aided pre-university colleges, contended that their service before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid had not been counted for pay fixation, increments, seniority, pension and other consequential service benefits.

They sought consideration of their representation dated 31 August 2026 and relied on the decisions in W.P. No. 21216/2014 and W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters.

The Division Bench had affirmed the earlier decision striking down the 2014 Act insofar as it excluded pre-grant service from relevant service benefits.

The State appeared through the Additional Government Advocate, and the petition was taken up for disposal with the parties’ consent.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court relied on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in W.P. No. 21216/2014, which struck down the Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay, Pension and Other Benefit) Act, 2014, and the Division Bench decision affirming it in W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters.

As clarified by the Division Bench, pre-grant service is to be counted for notional pay fixation on the date of admission to grant-in-aid and for consequential benefits, including pension and other service benefits; however, the State is not liable for salary arrears or other monetary benefits for the pre-grant period.

Under Annexure I to the 1999 Rules, responsibility for salary and benefits during that period remains with the institution’s management.

The Court found the petitioners similarly placed to the employees covered by the Division Bench judgment.

Applying that judgment’s distinction between counting pre-grant service for service-related calculations and liability to pay salary for that period, the Court directed the authorities to consider the petitioners’ initial service for pay fixation or refixation and consequential benefits, while preserving the rule that the State owes no pre-grant salary arrears.

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 pay fixation or refixation, increments, seniority, pensionary and retirement benefits, and other consequential service benefits, in accordance with paragraph 61 of the Division Bench judgment.

The exercise was to be completed within six weeks, with compliance reported to the Registry.