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

The 25 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.

They relied on the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters, particularly paragraph 61, and sought consideration of their representations. The respondents submitted that the relief was governed by paragraph 61 of that judgment.

1. 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.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioners’ representations and extend the benefits flowing from the appellate judgment.

The Court applied the clarification in paragraph 61 of the judgment in W.A. No. 2476/2015 and connected matters, which confined the issue to reckoning non-grant-period service for pay fixation and consequential service benefits.

Under that clarification, pre-grant service 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; the State is not liable for salary arrears or other monetary benefits for the pre-grant period. Annexure I to the Karnataka Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1999 places responsibility for salary and other benefits up to grant admission on the institution’s management.

The petitioners’ claim fell within the scope of paragraph 61 of the appellate judgment.

The Court therefore directed that their service from the initial appointment date, including the pre-grant period, be reckoned for notional pay fixation and calculation of pension and other service benefits. This did not impose on the State liability for pre-grant salary arrears, which remained the management’s responsibility under the applicable grant-in-aid framework.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.