Court holds service during non-grant period countable for pay fixation and pension but denies salary arrears for that period; relief denied for delayed claims
In a significant judgment dated August 27, 2026, the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices D K Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan) has clarified the entitlement of employees working in private aided educational institutions with regard to service benefits during the period before their posts were admitted to grant-in-aid by the State.
The case, State of Karnataka v. Yogesh K and Another, arose from a writ petition filed by the respondent seeking grant-in-aid benefits retrospectively from August 4, 2005. The Single Judge had allowed the petition without adequately considering the delay of nearly 18 years in filing the claim. The State of Karnataka challenged this order.
The Court referred to the Coordinate Bench's earlier judgment dated July 24, 2026, which held that employees of private aided educational institutions are entitled to have their service during the non-grant period reckoned for the purpose of notional pay fixation on the date their posts were regularized under grant-in-aid. This inclusion extends to consequential service benefits such as pension and other retirement benefits. However, the Court was clear in holding that these employees are not entitled to claim arrears of salary or any other monetary benefits from the State for the period prior to the admission of their posts to grant-in-aid. The responsibility to pay salaries during the non-grant period remains with the institution's management.
The Court emphasized that mere financial constraints or the burden on the State exchequer cannot justify denying parity in service benefits to similarly situated employees performing identical duties with the same qualifications, whether government employees or employees of private aided institutions. The Court struck down any classification based solely on financial burden that lacks rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.
Crucially, the Court set aside the Single Judge's order insofar as it granted retrospective grant-in-aid benefits from 2005 to the petitioner who approached the Court only in 2023. The Court invoked the principle of laches and delay, noting that a person who "sleeps over his right" and approaches the Court belatedly is not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Additionally, the Court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court decision in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India (1995), stating it was not applicable to the facts here.
This judgment reiterates the State's duty under Sections 49 and 87 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, to provide grant-in-aid within economic capacity and to maintain parity in service conditions between government and private aided institution employees but balances it by limiting financial liability to prospective benefits post grant admission.
Bottom Line:
Service law - Employees of private aided educational institutions are entitled to reckon service rendered during non-grant period for notional fixation of pay and consequential pensionary/service benefits after admission of post to grant-in-aid, but they are not entitled to arrears of salary or other monetary benefits from the State for the pre-grant period - Relief under Article 226 can be denied on ground of gross delay and laches where claim for grant-in-aid benefits is made belatedly.
Statutory provision(s):
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 14, Article 226; Karnataka Education Act, 1983 Sections 49, 87
State of Karnataka v. Yogesh K, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2987597
