- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 8882 OF 2020 (S-R) BETWEEN: 1. DR K P SREENATH S/O LATE K PARTHANATH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.2390, 1ST A MAIN 7TH B CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-40. 2. DR B M JAYASHREE W/O LATE SHAILENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.45, "ANUGRAHA" 3RD BLOCK, 6TH CROSS, T R NAGARA, BENGALURU-28 3. DR SMT S ASHADEVI D/O LATE S SAMBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O NO.505, 15TH CORSS 17TH MAIN, INDIRANAGARA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-38. 4. DR H K MARISWAMY S/O LATE KULLACHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.2871, VAGARTHA 4TH CROSS,F BLOCK 3RD STAGE,DATTAGALLI KANAKADAS NAGARA MYSORE - 570 033. Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 5. DR N RANGASWAMY S/O SRI NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.A-42, "SOUNDARYA KRUPA" 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN DEVARAJ ARASU LAYOUT NAGADEVANAHALLI BENGALURU -56 6. PROF. LALITHA ASHWATH W/O ASHWATH NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.259, "SPANDANA" F BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGARA BENGALURU -92. 7. DR N RAMACHANDRASWAMY S/O LATE N R NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.404, LAXURIA APARTMENTS 8TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU -55 8. DR A GOVINDAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.1246, SIR M V LAYOUT 1ST BLOCK, KENGERI UPANAGARA BENGALURU -60. 9. DR G T CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE THIMMANNA R/O NO.63, 17TH CROSS 8TH MAIN, BANDAPPA GARDEN MUTHYAL NAGARA BENGALURU -54. 10. DR K K SEETHAMMA D/O LATE K T KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 R/O NO.227, F NEELADRI MAHAL NANDIDURGA ROAD R J JAY MAHAL BENGALURU -46. 11. DR R GOPALAKRISHNA S/O LATE RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O NO.2035, SUNBEAM 2 TALAGHATTAPURA BENGALURU -62. 12. DR P RAJALAKSHMI W/O P K PADMANABHAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O NO.71, "SRI SAI NILAYAM" 3RD MAIN ROAD, VHBCS LAYOUT NAGAVARA, BENGALURU -45. 13. DR J V JANHAVI W/O H J VAMAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O NO.32, GOVINDAPPA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU -04. 14. DR S R ANANTHANARAYANA S/O LATE S N RAMASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.B1202, RNS SHANTHI NIVAS APARTMENT YASHWANTPURA, BENGALURU -22. 15. DR S K SARANGI S/O LATE DR R N SARANGI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.1223, B BLOCK GPLV APT.II, K C HALLI BENGALURU -76. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 16. DR S CHANNABASAPPA S/O LATE SIDDABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.752, 9TH A MAIN 5TH CROSS, HAMPI NAGARA BENGALURU -104. 17. DR S R AMBIKA W/O DR P C SHREEDHARAN AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O NO.2397/23, 18TH MAIN ROAD KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU -78. 18. DR PUTTARAJU H P S/O LATE M PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.14, 6TH CROSS 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU -72. 19. DR N SHADAKSHARASWAMY S/O LATE NAGABHUSHAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.3, 2ND MAIN KALYANA NAGARA NAGARABHAVI ROAD BENGALURU -72. 20. DR N S ASHOK KUMAR S/O LATE N S NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.64, 35TH MAIN 2ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU -68. 21. DR B C PRABHAKAR S/O LATE B CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.23/38/2 ADARSHA LAYOUT - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 2ND CROSS, 10TH MAIN KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD NEAR MALLATHALLI BENGALURU -56. 22. DR ISMATH AFSHAN D/O T K ABDUL AZID AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O NO.A002,ROYAL LEGEND APARTMENT KODICHIKENAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU -76. 23. DR A S RAYAMANE S/O LATE SHANKAR RAYAMANE AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O NO.66,,ANNAPURNESHWARI 3RD MAIN, AMARAVATHI BEEDI 10 CROSS, MUNESHWARA NAGARA ULLAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU -56. 24. DR MANJUNATH K S/O LATE K ANJANEYA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.1ST MAIN, 1ST COSS NAGARABHAVI, 9TH PHASE 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU -72. 25. DR M JAMUNA W/O M MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.530, "RAJAGRUHA" OPP. GOVERNMENT URDU BOY SCHOOL DODABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 26. DR SUNDARRAJ URS S/O LATE CHANNARAJE URS AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O NO.10, BETTADA ARAGI 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN MALLATHALLI, BENGALURU -56. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 27. DR R SOMASHEKHAR S/O LATE G KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O NO.1492, 7TH CROSS CHANDRA LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, 2ND PHASE VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU -40. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S R HEGDE HUDLAMANE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION M S BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR BENGALURU-01. 2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (SERVICE) VIDHANASOUDHA BENGALURU-01. 3. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY REP BY REGISRAR "JNANA BHARATHI" CAMPUS BENGALUR-560056. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.PRASANNA.B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.FD 3 SRP 2020 BENGALURU DATED 23/03/2020 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND STRIKE DOWN THE CONSEQUENTIAL ACT, CALLED AS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 KARNATAKA ACT, NO.6/2020 IN THE NAME OF KARNATAKA REGULATION OF PAY AND PENSIONS OF TEACHERS IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ACT, 2020, WHICH RECEIVED THE ASSENT TO GOVERNOR ON 21/04/2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-C BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER AS THE CASE MAY BE, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking following prayer: a. Quash the impugned Government Order No.FD 3 SRP 2020 BENGALURU dated 23.03.2020 produced as Annexure-B and to quash impugned Government Order at Annexure-D passed by the 1st Respondent Government at Order No.FD 2 SRP 2020, Bengaluru dated 12.03.2020 by issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order as the case may be. b. And consequently issue, Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to fix the pension of all the retired Petitioners under UGC Scale applying the basic principles of not less than 50% of the basic last pay drawn by each - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 Petitioners with revised pensionary benefits such as Gratuity and DCRG etc. c. Or in the alternative direct the Respondents to continue the present Revised Pension as per the existing revised pay scale following the Central Rule, to secure the ends of justice and equity. d. Issue such other incidental relief which may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case and also for cost. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in a similarly placed matter, in W.P.No.20469 of 2021, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, quashed the Government Order dated 12.03.2020 issued by the second respondent, denying 50% pension of the revised last pay- drawn by the petitioners, therein vide order dated 15.06.2023. He submits that the petitioners herein are entitled for the same benefit on the ground of parity. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 4. The learned AGA submits that this writ petition may be disposed of, in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.20469 of 2021. 5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.RAGHAVENDRA ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph Nos.23 to 28 as follows: "23. The stand of the State of Karnataka that the pensionary benefits had been conferred on the appellants w.e.f 1-4-1998 on the premise that the benefit of the revision of scales of pay to its own employees had been conferred from 1-1-1998, in our opinion, is wholly misconceived. Firstly, because the employees of the State of Karnataka and the appellants, in the matter of grant of benefit of revised scales of pay, do not stand on the same footing as revised scales of pay had been made applicable to their cases from a different date. Secondly, the appellants had been given the benefit of the revised scales of pay w.e.f 1-1-1996. It is now well settled that a notification can be issued by the State accepting the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee with retrospective effect as it was beneficent to the employees. Once such a retrospective effect is given to the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee, the employees concerned despite their reaching the age of superannuation in between the said dates and/or the 1 Civil Appeal No.1389, 1390, 1395 & 1865/2006 disposed of on 12.05.2006LAWS (SC)-2006-5-26 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 date of issuance of the notification would be deemed to be getting the said scales of pay as on 1-1-1996. By reason of such notification, as the appellants had been deprived of a vested right, they could not have been deprived therefrom and that too by reason of executive instructions. 24. The contention of the State that the matter relating to the grant of pensionary benefits vis-à-vis the revision in the scales of pay stands on a different footing, thus, must be rejected. 25. Pension, as is well known, is not a bounty. It is treated to be a deferred salary. It is akin to right of property. It is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of retirement. 26. These appeals involve the question of revision of pay and consequent revision in pension and not the grant of pension for the first time. Only the modality of computing the quantum of pension was required to be determined in terms of the notification issued by the State of Karnataka. For the said purpose, Rule 296 of the Rules was made applicable. Once this rule became applicable, indisputably the computation of pensionary benefits was required to be carried out in terms thereof. The Pension Rules envisage that pension should be calculated only on the basis of the emoluments last drawn. No order, therefore, could be issued which would be contrary to or inconsistent therewith. Such emoluments were to be reckoned only in terms of the statutory rules. If the State had taken a conscious decision to extend the benefit of the UGC pay scales w.e.f 1-1-1996 to the appellants, allowing them to draw their pay and allowances in terms thereof, we fail to see any reason as to why the pensionary benefits would not be extended to them from the said date. 27. In fact the status of the appellants that they were on a par with teachers of the government colleges was not disputed. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in V.P.Babar and Ors. vs. State - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 of Karnataka (W.P.Nos. 32163-32208/ 1998) has clearly held so. It has not been disputed that the said judgment has become final as the State of Karnataka did not prefer any appeal thereagainst. 28. The impugned orders furthermore are opposed to the basic principles of law inasmuch as by reason of executive instructions an employee cannot be deprived of a vested or accrued right. Such a right to draw pension to the extent of 50% of the emoluments, computed in terms of the rules w.e.f 1- 1-1996, vested in the appellants in terms of government notification read with Rule 296 of the Rules. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court while allowing the appeal has assessed the cause and made the pension benefits applicable to the similarly situated persons. The petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit on the ground of parity. 7. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 12.03.2020 issued by the second respondent is set aside and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43446 WP No. 8882 of 2020 Respondent Nos.1 to 5 are directed to fix the pension of the petitioners, in terms of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.RAGHAVENDRA ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA. iii) It is needless to say that the respondents are directed to consider payment of arrears of pension pending, and to pay to the petitioners, in accordance with law within four months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE DH, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28