Karnataka HC Upholds Old Pension For Professor Appointed In 1996, Counting Service Carried Across Universities Through Technical Resignation

The respondent entered service as a Lecturer at Karnatak University, Dharwad, on 14 March 1996.

In 2013, while serving as an Associate Professor, he applied through the proper channel for and was appointed to a Professor post at Karnataka State Law University (KSLU), Hubballi.

Karnatak University accepted his resignation under Rule 252(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) and relieved him to join KSLU, issuing his Last Pay Certificate for pay protection.

Although his KSLU appointment terms specified the New Fixed Contributory Pension Scheme, KSLU’s Syndicate resolved in 2021 to extend the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) to him, relying on government directions and his prior service.

After his superannuation on 31 December 2024, the State denied OPS recognition of his earlier service, and he received no pension under either scheme.

A Single Judge allowed his writ petition on 17 March 2026; the State appealed.

Rule 252(b) KCSR provides that resignation to take up, with proper permission, another appointment whose service counts in full or in part is not a resignation from public service.

The Court also relied on the Government clarification of 12 July 2007, under which qualifying employees already in regular service before 1 April 2006 who move to another post through the proper channel or by technical resignation are not treated as new recruits for the New Pension Scheme.

The Court held that where pension entitlement is governed by statutory rules, an appointment condition cannot override those rules, and there can be no estoppel against a statute.

It further treated interest as appropriate recompense for delayed payment of pensionary sums lawfully due.

The respondent applied through his existing employer, and Karnatak University expressly accepted his resignation under Rule 252(b), relieved him to join KSLU, and issued his Last Pay Certificate for pay protection.

The Court considered these contemporaneous acts evidence that the transfer was a technical resignation rather than a break in public service; the prior service could not therefore be disregarded when determining pension entitlement.

The Court rejected the State’s reliance on Clause 10 because an appointment condition could not displace pension rights preserved by the governing statutory framework.

It concluded that the respondent’s qualifying service in both Universities had to be considered under OPS and that the State’s delay in settling pension warranted interest.

The respondent was held entitled to OPS pension and consequential pensionary and terminal benefits, with qualifying service in both Universities reckoned in accordance with law.

Arrears were made subject to interest at 6% per annum from the respective due dates until payment.

The State was granted eight weeks from the appellate judgment to determine and disburse the benefits; on default, interest would rise to 12% per annum and the State would also pay litigation costs of ₹1,00,000.