- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16222 WP No. 106712 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106712 OF 2024 (S-R) BETWEEN: SRI. LAXMANSINGH JAYASINGH BULAKE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED PE TEACHER, R/O. SAMPAGAON, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, BELAGAVI 590001. 3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001. 4. THE MANAGEMENT OF RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY SAMPAGAON-590001. BY ITS CHAIRMAN S.S.SIDNAL. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. LINGARAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16222 WP No. 106712 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO. SAMKHYA/ G3(4)/DAVE/E.A.T-12/99/99-2000/2021 DATED 05/02/2022 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 VOID ANNEXURE- H AS ILLEGAL AND VOID, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 2. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER FROM 01/04/1997 AND GRANT THE BENEFIT OF PENSION AND PENSIONER BENEFIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 3. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: 1. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order bearing no. G3(4)/Dave/E.A.T-12/99/99-2000/2021-22/4114 dated 05/02/2022 issued by Respondent No.2 void ANNEXURE- H as illegal and void, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the service of the petitioner from 01/04/1997 and grant the benefit of pension and pensioner benefit, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16222 WP No. 106712 of 2024 2. The petitioner is appointed as a Physical Education teacher in the respondent institution with effect from 01.04.1997. Without assigning any reasons, it transpires that the services of the petitioner was terminated-orally on 28.10.1997. The petitioner challenges the said termination before the Education Appellate Tribunal. The Education Appellate Tribunal in terms of its order dated 20.04.2004 directs reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, but denies monetary benefits. This is challenged before this Court by the respondents in a writ petition which comes to be dismissed by an Order dated 03.07.2015. 3. The State later prefers a review against the said Order on the score that all monetary benefits are directed to be paid by the Education Appellate Tribunal and the petitioner had not worked, therefore, the Co-ordinate Bench modifies the said Order to the extent that the monetary benefits should be paid by the institution and not by the State and continuity of service that was granted by the Tribunal stood confirmed. The petitioner then retires on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2019. Pension of the petitioner is not settled on the score that he is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16222 WP No. 106712 of 2024 sought to be brought within the ambit of the new pension scheme and cannot be granted pension under the pension scheme that prevailed prior to the new pension scheme coming into effect. It is this order that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel Sri. Sunil S. Desai appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the termination of the petitioner stood challenged and in the challenge, the Educational Appellate Tribunal had unequivocally directed that the petitioner would be entitled to consequential benefits particularly of continuity of service. The same is confirmed by the co-ordinate bench and the division bench as well, not once but thrice, as the EAT, the writ petition and the writ appeal all are dismissed with one singular voice that the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service. The learned counsel submits that denial of pension to the petitioner is contrary to law. Therefore, seeks a direction for grant of pension. 5. Per contra the learned HCGP Smt. Girija Hiremat would vehemently refute the submission in contending that the petitioner has to be brought under new pension scheme, as the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16222 WP No. 106712 of 2024 State Government has granted approval on 24.07.2009 and the approval would spring only from the date of approval and not a date anterior to the approval, the pension, therefore, must be assessed only under the new pension scheme. This Court had clearly directed that monetary benefits should be paid only by the institution and not by the State. On all these factors the Learned HCGP submits that the petition be dismissed and if the petitioner is wanting, he shall avail the new pension scheme and not the old pension scheme. If there is delay in payment of pension, it is due to the folly of the petitioner and not the State. The learned HCGP seeks dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material and record. 7. The afore-narrated dates, link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The petitioner joins the service of respondent No.4-institution as a Physical Education Teacher on 01.04.1997. It transpires that in the month of October 1997 the petitioner was directed not to come to work which would amount - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16222 WP No. 106712 of 2024 to oral termination. The said termination is challenged before the Educational Appellate Tribunal by the petitioner invoking Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The Educational Appellate Tribunal in terms of its order dated 20.04.2004 directs reinstatement with all consequential benefits including back wages. The order of the Tribunal reads as follows: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed with no order as to cost. 2. The impugned unwritten and non-communicated order of removal of the appellant form the services as physical education teacher form the Higher Secondary School, Sampgaon, by the respondent No.1 Management is set aside. 3. The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to reinstate the appellant in the Higher Secondary School Sampgaon run by it as physical education teacher within 60 days from the date of this judgment. 4. It is held that t he appellant is deemed to have been continuously in service and is also entitled to all monetary benefits like back salary, increment, leave etc. Respondent 2 and 3 are liable to be pay all the back wages and other monetary benefits as ordered above. 8. The said order of the Tribunal is challenged before this Court by the State in a writ petition which comes to be dismissed on 03.07.2015. The State realizing that the entire - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16222 WP No. 106712 of 2024 back wages would cost a serious burden upon the State, files a review petition seeking review of the order insofar as it pertains grant of monetary benefits. The co-ordinate bench in the review petition directs that the monetary benefits should be paid by the institution and not by the State prior to the date of approval and from the date of approval, it was the burden of the State is what the Co-ordinate Bench holds in the review petition. 9. The petitioner in this jugglery of litigation, retires on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2019. The State, as it is known for its wont, did not grant pension on the score that the approval of the petitioner's appointment comes about only on 24.07.2009 and therefore he would not be entitled to any pension under the old pension scheme, but is entitled to pension under the new pension scheme, as the new pension scheme had come into effect from 01.04.2006. Therefore, the petitioner's approval coming about on 24.07.2009 could not be placed in the old pension scheme. The reason rendered in the impugned order is on the face of it erroneous and illegal, for the reason that the petitioner's employment is with effect from 01.04.1997. Continuity of service is granted by the Education - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16222 WP No. 106712 of 2024 Appellate Tribunal, by the learned Single Judge, while disposing the petition and in the review petition. 10. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have been in employment from 01.04.1997 till the date of his superannuation. Approval that is granted on 24.07.2009 is only the recognition of employment of the petitioner and the approval cannot mean that the appointment would spring from 24.07.2009. But it does spring from a retrospective date from which the petitioner was granted continuity of service by the Tribunal or by this Court. The respondent by granting approval on 24.07.2009 which was also noticed by the learned Single Judge while disposing the petition cannot now mean that the petitioner would be denied pension under the old pension scheme. In the peculiar facts of this case though the petitioner's approval was on 24.07.2009, the Judicial Orders passed would prevail over the decision of the State to grant approval on 24.07.2009. 11. It would have been altogether a different circumstance, if the learned Single Judge or the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had not noticed the approval granted on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16222 WP No. 106712 of 2024 24.07.2009. Throughout the proceedings, the approval on 24.07.2009 was a part of the fulcrum before the Court while passing the order. The Court has not taken away the right to pension in terms of the old pension scheme. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed and the impugned order to be obliterated. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order bearing No.G3(4)/Dave/EAT-12/99/99-2000/2021-22/4114 dated 05.02.2022 issued by respondent No.2 stands quashed. ii. The petitioner's pension shall be settled under the old pension scheme within an outer limit of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In the event the pension is not settled within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order petitioner becomes entitled to interest on pension and arrears - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16222 WP No. 106712 of 2024 of pension at 12% per annum from the date of his retirement till the date the pension reaches the doors of the petitioner. Kmv CT:ANB Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE