Facts
The petitioners, teaching and non-teaching employees of educational institutions, sought consideration of their representation dated 27 August 2026 for service-related financial benefits based on earlier proceedings concerning service rendered before posts were admitted to grant-in-aid.
Source reference: para. 2, p. 13They relied on the orders in W.P. No. 21216 of 2014 and connected matters, as affirmed in W.A. No. 2476 of 2015 and connected matters.
Source reference: paras. 2–4, pp. 13–14The State submitted that the relief was governed by paragraph 61 of the appellate judgment.
Source reference: para. 5, p. 14Issues
1. Whether the respondents should consider the petitioners’ representation and reckon service rendered before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid for consequential service benefits.
Source reference: paras. 2, 5–7, pp. 13–152. Whether the petitioners are entitled to salary arrears or other monetary benefits from the State for the pre-grant period.
Source reference: para. 6, pp. 14–15Law Applied
The Court applied the clarification in paragraph 61 of the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 2476 of 2015 and connected matters.
Source reference: para. 6, pp. 14–15Under Annexure I to the Rules, 1999, the institution’s management is responsible for salary and other benefits until a post is admitted to grant-in-aid. Service during that non-grant period is to be reckoned for notional pay fixation as of the date of admission to grant-in-aid and for consequential benefits, including pension and other service benefits; it does not give rise to a claim against the State for salary arrears or other monetary benefits for the pre-grant period.
Source reference: para. 6, pp. 14–15Reasoning
The Court accepted that the earlier appellate judgment had affirmed the relevant writ petitions but treated paragraph 61 as defining the scope of relief.
Source reference: paras. 4–6, pp. 14–15Applying that clarification, it directed the authorities to reckon the petitioners’ service from their respective dates of appointment, including pre-grant service, only for the benefits contemplated by paragraph 61. The direction did not extend to payment by the State of salary arrears for the non-grant period.
Source reference: paras. 6–7, pp. 15–16Holding
The petition was allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 were directed to reckon the petitioners’ service from their dates of appointment, including pre-grant service, for the benefits flowing from paragraph 61 of the appellate judgment, and to complete consideration and pass appropriate orders within six months.
The applicable relief is notional pay fixation and consequential service benefits, not pre-grant salary arrears from the State.
Source reference: para. 6, pp. 14–15Original Court PDF
NAGENDRAvsTHE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
