Employees Of Karnataka Media Academy And Karnataka State Temperance Board Not Entitled To Pensionary Benefits As Government Servants; Karnataka High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil has held that employees of the Karnataka Media Academy and the Karnataka State Temperance Board are not entitled to pensionary benefits as Government servants, as their service is not made pensionable under the applicable provisions. Deciding a batch of appeals filed by the State Government, the Bench set aside an order of the single judge directing payment of pension and arrears to the writ petitioners, who had claimed post-retirement benefits on par with Government employees. The Court concluded that, in the absence of any specific provision extending pension eligibility to such employees, no right to Government pension could be recognized.
The appeals, review petition, and contempt proceedings arose from challenges to various orders directing the State of Karnataka to grant pensionary benefits to employees of the Karnataka Media Academy and the Karnataka State Temperance Board. The employees had been appointed to posts created with Government approval, and the Media Academy’s bye-laws made the Karnataka Civil Services Rules applicable only for pay, allowances, and other service conditions.
The State contended that neither body was a grant-in-aid institution and no rule, bye-law, or executive order rendered their service pensionable. It was submitted that Rules 222 and 223 of the KCSR restrict pension to Government servants whose service is under Government and paid for by Government, and employees of autonomous bodies do not fall within this category. The employees argued that appointments to Government-created posts and application of KCSRs estopped the Government from denying pension, and they referred to orders where pension had been extended to staff of other institutions. The Bench considered prior decisions concerning grant-in-aid institutions, reviewability of earlier judgments, and the statutory definitions relevant to Government servants.
The Court recorded that the Media Academy and Temperance Board “were Government Bodies formed on the strength of the Government Orders issued exercising the executive power of the State.” It noted, however, that “there is no provision in the Bye-laws making the service of the employees… pensionable in terms of the KCSRs.” The Bench examined Rule 2(d) of the KCS (CC&A) Rules defining a Government servant as one “who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who hold a civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka.” It observed that Rule 2(1) of the KCSRs applies the Rules only to persons appointed to civil services and serving in connection with the affairs of the State.
The Court stated that pension-qualifying service under Rule 222 requires that “the service must be under Government,” “the employment must be substantive and permanent,” and “the service must be paid for by Government.” It recorded that employees of institutions such as municipalities and grant-in-aid schools are expressly excluded under Rule 223. Referring to earlier decisions, the Bench stated that the Film Institute case involved a “Grant-in-Aid Educational Institution” and therefore did not apply to the present bodies, which are “obviously not Grant-in-Aid Institutions.”
The Bench observed that the absence of any rule, bye-law, or executive order making pension applicable meant that employees “cannot claim that they are entitled to pension as a matter of right.” The Court added that although employees relied on instances where Government extended pension to workers of other institutions, “the very fact that the Government has passed such orders… would clearly prove that such orders… show that the Government, in its discretion, has to pass such orders.” It further recorded that the question of whether employees of these bodies should be granted the same treatment as others “is a question for the Government to consider,” and that judicial review under Article 226 cannot determine whether employment in such bodies is to be made pensionable.
The Court allowed the writ appeals by recording that “The Writ Appeals No.150/2024, 164/2024, 175/2024, 267/2024 and 1689/2024 are allowed.” It directed that the review petition be allowed, stating: “The judgment dated 03.07.2024 passed in Writ Appeal No.151/2024 is reviewed and recalled.”
The Court ordered that the writ petitions “shall stand ordered directing the appellant Government to take up the request made by the writ petitioners seeking pension and to pass an informed order thereon after hearing the Media Academy and the Temperance Board as well.” It required that “The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
“In the light of the orders passed, the Contempt of Court Case No.88/2024 is dropped. Notice issued shall stand discharged in the Contempt of Court case.” It added that “All interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed in all the matters.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners / Appellants (State and Boards): Sri. Reuben Jacob, AAG; Smt. Mamatha Shetty, AGA; Smt. Prathibha R.K., AGA; Smt. Vandana N., Advocate.
For the Respondents / Employees: Sri. Pruthveen Prahlad Kattimani, Advocate; Sri. Ranganatha S. Jois, Advocate; Sri. S.Y. Rodagi, Advocate; Sri. Ramakrishna N., Advocate.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Yallagaiah G. & Ors.; connected matters
Case Number: Writ Appeal No.150 of 2024 & connected appeals, review petition, and contempt petition
Bench: Justice Anu Sivaraman, Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil
