Karnataka High Court
Employment and Labour LawSocial Security and Pensions

Pre-grant-in-aid service counts for notional pay fixation and pension benefits, not salary arrears.

SRI. G SURESHA, vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 05, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Pre-grant-in-aid service counts for notional pay fixation and pension benefits, not salary arrears.. SRI. G SURESHA, vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners, teaching and non-teaching employees of aided educational institutions, sought recognition of their service from their respective initial appointment dates, including service before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid, for pay fixation and consequential service and pensionary benefits.

Source reference: para. 3–4

They relied on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters, particularly its clarification on the treatment of non-grant service.

Source reference: para. 4–7

The respondents accepted that the petition could be considered in light of paragraph 61 of that decision.

Source reference: para. 6–7
02

Issues

Whether service rendered before a post’s admission to grant-in-aid must be reckoned for notional pay fixation and consequential pensionary and other service benefits.

Source reference: para. 3, 7–8

Whether the petitioners could claim salary arrears or other monetary benefits from the State for the pre-grant period.

Source reference: para. 7
03

Law Applied

The Court applied the clarification in paragraph 61 of the judgment in W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters, read with Annexure I to the Rules, 1999.

Source reference: para. 7

Under that rule, service during the non-grant period is to be counted for notional pay fixation as of the date the post is admitted to grant-in-aid and for consequential benefits, including pension and other service benefits; however, the State bears no liability to pay salary or other monetary benefits for that period, as that liability remains with the institution’s management.

Source reference: para. 7
04

Reasoning

The petitioners’ claim was confined to recognition of their pre-grant service for service-benefit calculations.

Source reference: para. 7–8

Applying the appellate court’s clarification, the Court distinguished such notional recognition from a claim for salary: the former was permissible for pay fixation and consequential benefits, while salary and other monetary benefits for the non-grant period remained the management’s responsibility.

Source reference: para. 7–8

The Court therefore directed the authorities to reckon service from the petitioners’ appointment dates for the specified purposes, without directing payment of pre-grant salary arrears.

Source reference: para. 7–8
05

Holding

The petition was allowed and disposed of.

Respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 10 were directed to reckon the petitioners’ service from their respective appointment dates, including pre-grant service, for notional pay fixation and calculation of pension and other service benefits.

Source reference: para. 7–9

The authorities were directed to complete that consideration within six months; no State liability for pre-grant salary or other monetary benefits was recognized.

Source reference: para. 7–9
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI. G SURESHA,vsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

Karnataka High Court · October 05, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment