01Facts
Respondents 1–10, retired government employees, obtained relief from the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which interpreted Rule 247-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs) as applicable on each employee’s date of retirement and granted additional qualifying service for pension purposes.
pp. 5–6The State petitioned under Articles 226 and 227 to quash the Tribunal’s order dated 17 August 2022 in Application Nos. 11243–11252/2021.
pp. 5–6The High Court considered a Division Bench decision dated 31 October 2025 addressing the same issue.
p. 602Issues
i.Whether the respondents’ additional qualifying service for pension should be determined under Rule 247-A of the KCSRs as it stood on their respective dates of retirement.
pp. 5–6ii.Whether the Tribunal’s order granting relief on that basis warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227.
pp. 5–6, 14–1503Law Applied
Rule 6 of the KCSRs provides that pension is governed by the rules in force when a government servant retires or is discharged; accordingly, pension and qualifying service are determined under the applicable rules at retirement.
pp. 7–9, 12–13Rule 247-A provides for additional qualifying service, subject to the limits specified in the version in force at the relevant time; the governing version is the one in force on the employee’s retirement date.
pp. 6–8, 13–14The Court followed the Division Bench ruling in W.P. No. 16582/2023 and connected matters, which applied these principles to Rule 247-A.
p. 6That ruling also referred to Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) 6 SCC 623, on the distinction between permissible prospective changes to service rules and retrospective deprivation of benefits already granted or availed.
pp. 10–13Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
States Reorganisation Act, 1956 Section 115
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the Division Bench had already considered the interaction between Rules 6 and 247-A and held that additional qualifying service must be calculated under the version of Rule 247-A in force on the employee’s retirement date, when pension entitlement is determined.
pp. 6, 13–14Because the Tribunal’s order granted relief on that basis, the Court found no ground to interfere with it.
p. 1405Holding
The Court rejected the State’s writ petition.
p. 15The Court left the Tribunal’s order undisturbed.
p. 15Original Court PDF
THE STATE OF KARNATAKAvsSRI MURALIDHAR HANAMANTH RAO KULKARNI S/O HANAMANTH RAO KULKARNI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
