Karnataka High Court
Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

Pre-grant service counts for notional pay fixation and consequential benefits, but not salary arrears.

SREENIVASA vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 05, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Pre-grant service counts for notional pay fixation and consequential benefits, but not salary arrears.. SREENIVASA vs THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners, serving or retired employees of educational institutions, sought consideration of their representation dated 28 August 2026 and grant of service benefits by counting service rendered before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid. They relied on the decisions in W.P. No. 21216/2014 and W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters.

Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras 2–3

The State submitted that the relief was governed by paragraph 61 of the appellate judgment.

Source reference: p. 5, para 5
02

Issues

Whether the petitioners’ pre-grant-in-aid service should be reckoned for pay fixation and consequential service benefits

Source reference: pp. 5–7, paras 5–7

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

Source reference: p. 6, para 6
03

Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution supplied the basis for the Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Source reference: p. 4

The Court applied paragraph 61 of the judgment in W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters, which clarified that service rendered before a post’s admission to grant-in-aid is to be counted for notional pay fixation and consequential benefits, including pension and other service benefits, but does not entitle employees to salary arrears or other monetary benefits from the State for that period.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, para 6

Under Annexure-I to the Rules, 1999, the institution’s management remains liable for salary and other benefits until the post is admitted to grant-in-aid.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, para 6
04

Reasoning

The Court treated paragraph 61 of the appellate judgment as defining the extent of the petitioners’ entitlement. That paragraph distinguished between recognition of pre-grant-in-aid service for notional fixation and consequential service benefits, and payment of salary for that period, which remained the management’s responsibility.

Source reference: pp. 5–7, paras 5–7

Accordingly, the petitioners’ service was to be reckoned from their respective dates of appointment for the benefits permitted by paragraph 61, without creating a claim against the State for pre-grant-in-aid arrears.

Source reference: pp. 5–7, paras 5–7
05

Holding

The petition was allowed, with the Court directing respondents 1 to 3 to reckon the petitioners’ service from their dates of appointment, including the pre-grant-in-aid period, for the benefits contemplated by paragraph 61 of the appellate judgment.

The respondents were directed to complete consideration and pass appropriate orders within six months; the petition was accordingly disposed of.

Source reference: p. 8, paras 8–9
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SREENIVASAvsTHE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

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