Karnataka HC Reverses Old-Pension Relief For Retired Doctors Whose Appointment Terms Provided For Contributory PF

The respondents, former doctors of Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences, sought the benefit of the old pension scheme.

The Institute rejected their requests, and the Single Judge quashed the respective endorsements rejecting those requests.

The Institute appealed, contending that Clause 3 of the respondents’ appointment orders provided for a contributory pension or contributory provident fund scheme.

The Division Bench also considered the Institute’s affidavit stating that provident-fund contributions had been deducted from the respondents’ salaries and made by the Institute during their service.

The Court referred to the Government Order dated 26 July 2025, under which employees appointed after 1 April 2006 were to be covered by the New Pension Scheme, described as the Contributory Pension Scheme or Provident Fund Scheme.

It treated Clause 3 of the respondents’ appointment orders as specifying their applicable contributory scheme and relied on the evidence of provident-fund contributions in determining the benefits they had received.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent as a substantive basis for its decision; Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is identified as the provision under which the appeals were filed.

The Court held that the Single Judge had overlooked Clause 3 of the appointment orders, which provided for a contributory scheme.

The affidavit showed that provident-fund contributions had been made in respect of the respondents.

On that basis, the Court found that they had received the benefit of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and were not entitled to the Contributory Pension Scheme; accordingly, the Single Judge’s orders allowing their petitions could not stand.

The respondents were therefore not granted the requested old-pension benefit on the grounds addressed in the judgment.