- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27138-DB WP No. 1238 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 1238 OF 2021 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION M.S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS NEW PUBLIC OFFICERS NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560001 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE-577001 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575001 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MOODABIDRI MANGALORE DISTRICT Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27138-DB WP No. 1238 of 2021 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001 6. THE GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL THE HEAD MASTER BILIYOOR BANTWAL D K DISTRICT-574211 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG, ALONG WITH SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA) AND: 1. SRI DEVADAS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O P K BABU WORKING AS EDUCATION CO ORDINATOR O/O THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, MOODABIDRI MANGALURU TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 2. SRI V SRIRAMMOORTHY S/O ACHUTHA BHAT. V AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS TEACHER (PRESENTLY WORKING AS IN CHARGE HEAD MASTER) GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL MANCH, BANTWAL TALUK D.K DISTRICT-574 323 3. SRI. RAMACHANDRA BHAT M S/O LATE NARAYANA BHAT V AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT TEACHER (WORKING AS VICE-PRINCIPAL IN-CHARGE GOVERNMENT COMPOSITE PU COLLEGE BELLARE (HIGH SCHOOL SECTION) BELLARE POST, SULLIA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574212 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27138-DB WP No. 1238 of 2021 4. SRI JATHAPPA GOWDA. A S/O GIRIYAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL BILIYUR BANTWAL DAKSHINA KANNADA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU APPLICATION NOS.7746/2016 C/W 8729/2016, 8836/2016 AND 8913/2016 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioners - State Authorities, being Education Department, are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the order dated 18.09.2019 passed in Application No.7746/2016 c/w Application Nos.8729/2016, 8836/2016 and 8913/2016 by the Karnataka - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27138-DB WP No. 1238 of 2021 State Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal'), where under the Tribunal has passed the following: "ORDER (i) The applications are hereby allowed. (ii) The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the applicants for yearly increment, promotion, pensionary benefits, EL & seniority and all other consequential benefits from the date of their initial entry into service on par with that of similarly situated persons as per the Government order dated 17.10.1998 and also as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition Nos.1890 to 1895/2010 dated 9.3.2010. (iii) The above exercise shall be done within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iv) It need not be reiterated that the applicants are entitled for arrears for a period of three years prior to the filing of these applications." 2. Heard the learned AAG Sri Reuben Jacob along with learned AGA Sri Harisha A.S., for the petitioners-State and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27138-DB WP No. 1238 of 2021 learned counsel Sri S. Rajashekar, for learned counsel Sri Annu Bhardwaj, for the respondents. 3. Learned AAG would contend that the order of the Tribunal impugned herein, if given effect to, would amount to regularizing the service of the respondents retrospectively and such a direction is impermissible in law. 4. Learned AAG would submit that the respondents were initially appointed in the years 1987 and 1988 as local candidates, whose services were regularized in terms of order dated 17.07.1998 in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.3634-3467/1995. Learned AGA would invite attention of this Court to the order dated 09.07.2006 in W.P.Nos.3634-3637/1995 passed by this Court and submits that this Court had only directed to consider the case of the respondents herein and pass orders according to law and there is no specific direction to regularize the respondents from retrospective date or to grant any other benefit. As such, the respondents would not be entitled for any benefit, financial or seniority prior to their regularization and therefore, the Tribunal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27138-DB WP No. 1238 of 2021 has committed an error in directing retrospective regularization. 5. Further, learned AGA would invite attention of this Court to the impugned order and submits that the Tribunal has recorded that the respondents have not sought seniority benefit, however, it directed the petitioners-authorities to consider the case of the applicants for seniority and all other benefits from their initial entry into service on par with that of similarly situated persons, thus, committed grave error and he would pray for allowing the petition. 6. Learned counsel Sri S. Rajashekar, appearing for the respondents would support the order passed by the Tribunal. He tried to justify the order passed by the Tribunal by referring to various orders passed by the Tribunal as well as this Court in W.P.Nos.1890-1895/2010 dated 09.03.2010. 7. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners rendered regular service against sanctioned post till their regularization, hence, they would be entitled for all the benefits attached to the post. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27138-DB WP No. 1238 of 2021 right in directing the petitioners to grant all financial benefits to the respondents by counting their service from initial appointment. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that the State-Authorities have made out a case for interference and accordingly, we pass the following order for the following reasons: 9. It is not in dispute that the respondents were initially appointed as local candidates in the year 1987 and 1988 and their services were regularized on 17.07.1998 in pursuance to order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.3634- 3637/1995, wherein this Court directed to consider the case of the respondents herein and to pass orders in accordance with law. We have gone through the said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The direction of the learned Single Judge is only to consider the cases of the respondents for regularization in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge of this Court has neither granted any consequential - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27138-DB WP No. 1238 of 2021 benefit nor was there any such observation. The Tribunal under the impugned order exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the reliefs, which the respondents were not entitled. The respondents of course taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking note of their service, would be entitled for regularization, but not from retrospective effect. The service rendered by the respondents could be counted only for the purpose of pension or pensionary benefits and not for the purpose of increment, promotion, EL and seniority as directed by the Tribunal. If such a benefit is granted, all other regular employees, who are not parties to the present writ petition or proceedings before the Tribunal and who were in service, as on the initial date of appointment of the respondents, would be affected. The respondents would be entitled to all financial benefit, promotion or seniority only from the date of their regularization and their earlier temporary service cannot be counted for the said purpose. 10. We have also perused the various other orders passed by the Tribunal referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27138-DB WP No. 1238 of 2021 11. The order passed by the Tribunal or the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.1890-1895/2010 dated 09.03.2010 would only indicate that the petitioners therein would be entitled for counting their past service only for the purpose of pensionary and other legally entitled benefits. 12. We have perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal at paragraph No.9 of its order recorded that the applicants sought only leave and pensionary benefits including fixation of pay and not claimed any seniority. However, while grating final relief, it directed for grant of promotion and seniority to the respondents herein by counting their service from the date of their initial appointment, which is wholly illegal. The orders referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents would not assist the case of the respondents. The respondents have not placed on record any order or decision or provision which directs counting of past service for the purpose of financial benefit or for the purpose of seniority. 13. We find merit in the writ petition to the extent of challenge to the direction of the Tribunal to count initial service - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27138-DB WP No. 1238 of 2021 of the respondents for the purpose of increment, EL, promotion and seniority benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed-in-part and the impugned order insofar as direction to count initial service of the respondents i.e., earlier to their regularization, for the purpose of increment, promotion, EL, seniority and all other consequential benefits is set-aside. However, the services rendered by the respondents earlier to their regularization shall be counted only for the purpose of qualifying service to fix the pension and pensionary benefits. 14. If the pension and pensionary benefits of the respondents are not settled yet, the same shall be settled in accordance with the observations made above, within three months from the date of uploading of this order in the website of this Court. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14