Karnataka High Court
Smt G H Uma vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB
WP No. 39262 of 2018
C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 39262 OF 2018 (S-KAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No. 14594 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
IN WP No. 39262/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. G. H. UMA,
W/O S V NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RETIRED HEAD MISTRESS
R/AT No.110, 24TH "C" CROSS,
16TH A MAIN, 3RD BLOCK EAST,
Digitally signed JAYANADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATERA,
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU BENGALURU-560 011.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI N. SIDDAPPA,
KARNATAKA S/O B. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENT PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
VATHUR, BENGALURU
3. SRI SURESHA B M
S/O LATE MUKKANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSITANT MASTER
GOVERNMENT PRE-UNIVERSITY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB
WP No. 39262 of 2018
C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022
HC-KAR
COLLEGE, HIGH SCHOOL SECTION,
KADUGODI, BENGALURU.
4. SRI K. G. SIDDADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATENGAIAH
S/O K. G. GOVINDAPPA,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT MASTER,
GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL,
SARAKKI 1ST PHASE,
J.P NADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATERA,
BENGALURU.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.D. KRUPESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PADMANABHA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTATIVE
REFORMS, (SERVICE RULES),
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT FINANCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001
4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)
PARK HOUSE, PALACE ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB
WP No. 39262 of 2018
C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022
HC-KAR
BANGALORE-560 001.
5. THE COMMISSINER FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
6. THE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
(SECONDARY EDUCATION)
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2018 PASSED IN
APPLICATION No.7956/2016, 7964/2016, 7967/2016 &
7969/2016 (OUT OF APPLICATION No.7956-8011/2016)
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION No.7956/2016,
7964/2016, 7967/2016 & 7969/2016 FILED BY THE
APPLICANTS/PETITIONERS AS PRAYED FOR, BY ALLOWING
THIS WRIT PETITION.
IN WP No. 14594/2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI BALAKRISHNA K.,
S/O KANNAN N.,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCC - JTO (JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER),
O/O JOINT DIRECTOR,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
KAUSALYA BHAVANA,
BANARGHATTA ROAD,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB
WP No. 39262 of 2018
C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022
HC-KAR
DAIRY CIRCLE, BANGALORE-29,
R/AT No.37/5, LINGARAJAPURA,
BANGALORE 84.
2. SRI RAGHUNATH L.,
S/O LAKSHMIPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC-RTD JTO ( JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER),
R/AT 127, ST. THOMAS ROAD,
KAMMANAHALLI,
BANGALORE 84.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BABU RAO M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
OF LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 01.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRIANING
IN KARNATAKA, KAUSALYA BHAVAN,
BANARGHATTA ROAD, DAIRY CIRCLE,
BANGALORE 29.
3. THE DESK OFFICER,
LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
(EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING),
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2022 IN APPLICATION Nos.4119
AND 4120/2020 ON THE FILE OF KSAT ORDER PASSED BY THE
KSAT AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB
WP No. 39262 of 2018
C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022
HC-KAR
THESE PETITIONS 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 K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) In W.P.No.39262/2018, the petitioners absorbed under the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of persons appointed on contract basis in the category of posts of Primary School Teachers, Secondary School Teachers, Government Junior College Lecturers, First Grade College Lecturers, Lecturers in Polytechnics, Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges, into State Civil Services (Special) Rules, 1990 (for short '1990 Rules') are before this Court aggrieved by order dated 13.04.2018 in Application Nos.7801 to 7842/2016 c/w. Application Nos.7843 to 7888/2016, A. Nos.7892 to 7955/2016, A. Nos.7956 to 8011/2016, A. Nos.971 to 989/2015 and A. Nos.5660 to 5672/2015 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short 'the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR Tribunal) by which their challenge to the proviso to Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of persons appointed on contract basis in the category of posts of Primary School Teachers, Secondary School Teachers, Government Junior College lecturers, First Grade College Lecturers, Lecturers in Polytechnics, Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges, into State Civil Services (Special) (Amendment) Rules, 1997 (for short '1997 Rules') published in Gazette dated 08.10.1999 (Annexure- A10) is rejected.
2. In W.P. No.14594/2022, the petitioners absorbed into Government Service under the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of Persons appointed on Contract basis in the category of posts of Craft Instructors/Junior Instructors [Re-designated as Junior Training Officers] in the Department of Employment and Training [Training Wing] into State Civil Services (Special) Rules, 1996 (for short '1996 Rules') are before this Court questioning the order dated 01.03.2022 in Application -7- NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR Nos.4119 and 4120 of 2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') wherein their challenge to Clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 4 of Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of Persons appointed on Contract basis in the category of posts of Craft Instructors/Junior Instructors [Re-designated as Junior Training Officers] in the Department of Employment and Training [Training Wing] into State Civil Services (Special) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 (for short '2012 Rules') as illegal and for a direction to the respondents to continue the benefits given to the petitioners as per the Notification dated 15.02.1996 in-terms of Clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 4 at Annexure-A3, is dismissed.
3. Since the question raised in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
4. For convenience sake, the facts of Writ Petition No.39262/2018 would be stated.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR
5. Petitioners were initially appointed on contract basis as Teachers in Primary School, Pre-University College, High School, Collegiate Education and in the Technical Education Department. The Government, as a one-time measure to absorb such Contract Teachers, framed the 1990 Rules and in-terms of 1990 Rules, the petitioners were absorbed into Government service. Rule 4 of the 1990 Rules governs the pay fixation, seniority, leave and pension of persons absorbed under the said Rules. In-terms of Rule 4, the initial basic pay of a Contract teacher absorbed shall be fixed in the scale of pay of the category of post to which he is absorbed, at a stage equal to the basic pay that he would have been eligible to draw had he been appointed to such post as a regular candidate with effect from the date of his appointment as a Contract teacher. However, the proviso denied the arrears of salary for the period of service rendered by such an absorbee prior to the date of absorption under the 1990 Rules. Subsequently, the State -9- NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR Government under the 1997 Rules, amended Rule 4 of 1990 Rules to the effect that the initial basic pay of a contract teacher absorbed under the 1990 Rules, shall be fixed on the date of his absorption at the minimum of the scale of the category of posts to which he is absorbed, which would mean that the absorbed teachers were denied the notional fixation of pay from the date of their initial appointment on contract basis. Questioning the said amendment, i.e., Rule 4(1) of the 1997 Rules, the petitioners were before the Tribunal in the above stated applications.
6. The Tribunal, under the impugned order under challenge, dismissed the applications, mainly placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Others Vs. G. Halappa and Others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 662. Questioning the order of the Tribunal rejecting their challenge to the amended Rule 4(1) under the 1997 Rules, the petitioners are before this Court in these writ petitions. The Rule which was under
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR challenge in W.P. No.14594/2022 is also identical to Rule which is under challenge in W.P. No.39262/2018.
7. Heard Sri. M. D. Krupesh, learned counsel for Sri. R. Padmanabha, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.39262/2018 and Sri.M. Babu Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.14594/2022 and Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent-State in both the writ petitions. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners in W.P. No.39262/2018 were absorbed under the 1990 Rules and petitioners in W.P. No.14594/2022 were absorbed under 1996 Rules with the benefit of notional fixation of pay under Rule 4 of the 1990 Rules and 1996 Rules respectively. However, they were denied the arrears of salary. Learned counsel would submit that contrary to the settled position of law, the benefit already granted cannot be taken away by giving retrospective effect to an amended Rule. The
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR respondent-State under 1997 Rules, amended Rule 4(1) of the 1990 Rules as well as the 1996 Rules to deny the notional fixation of pay by giving retrospective effect to the 1997 Rules. Learned counsels would contend that accrued benefit cannot be deprived or taken away by subsequent amendment by giving retrospective effect to such provision. In that regard both the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would invite attention of this Court to the order dated 07.03.2017 in W.P. Nos.21523- 21575/2016 and other connected writ petitions of a Co-ordinate Bench wherein, identical Rule was under
consideration and it was held that the subsequent amendment shall be interpreted to mean that it would not alter the rights already conferred and instead of striking down the Rules as unconstitutional, it read down the Rules to that extent.
9. Further, learned counsels would submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in dismissing the applications of the petitioners by placing reliance on
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR Halappa's case (supra). Learned counsels would submit that in Halappa's case (supra), a similar Rule and amendment to such Rule were under consideration and the Tribunal as well as this Court were of the view that instead of the benefit of an identical Rule, the petitioners therein would be entitled for the benefit of Rule 41A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short 'KCSRs'). The Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with such finding and set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the High Court granting benefit of Rule 41A of KCSRs, which according to the learned counsels would mean that the petitioners therein would be entitled to the benefit of the Rules under which they were absorbed. Thus, both learned counsels would pray for disposal of the present writ petition by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Chikkalingaiah and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (W.P.No.21523-21575/2016 dated 07.03.2017).
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR
10. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the petitioners would not be entitled to the benefit of Rule 4(1) of the 1990 Rules and would submit that the petitioners would not be entitled to any arrears of salary on notional fixation of their pay. Since their contract service cannot be recognized, they would not be entitled to notional fixation of their pay. Further, learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that the Tribunal and this Court in Halappa's case have rightly interpreted the identical Rule and have held that the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Rule 41A of KCSRs only and not to any other benefit. Further learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that contract services cannot be counted for any benefit. Learned Additional Government Advocate would also submit that subsequent to the order of the Tribunal, the Government has passed a Government Order to give effect
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR to the 1997 Rules. Therefore, she prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
11. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the order of the Tribunal impugned herein requires interference and the present writ petitions shall have to be disposed of by following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Chikkalingaiah's case.
12. In the instant case, Rule 4 of the 1990 Rules and the amendment to Rule 4 under 1997 Rules, are relevant, which read as follows:
1990 Rules:
"4. Pay Fixation, Seniority, Leave and Pension of Persons absorbed under these Rules:-
(1) The initial basic pay of a Contract Teacher absorbed under these rules shall be fixed in the scale of pay of the category of post to which he is appointed, at a stage equal to the basic pay that he would have been eligible to draw had he been appointed to such post as a regular candidate in accordance with the rules of recruitment with effect from the date of his appointment as a Contract Teacher:
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR Provided that a Contract Teacher shall not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the period of service rendered by him prior to the date of absorption under these rules.
(2) The service rendered as Contract Teacher shall count for the purpose of leave and pension and shall not count for the purpose of seniority, and grant of selection time scale of pay under the Karnataka Civil Services (Time Bound Advancement) Rules, 1983."
1997 Rules:
"2. Amendment of Rules 4:- For sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of persons appointed on Contract basis in the category of posts of Primary School Teachers, Secondary School Teachers, Government Junior College Lecturers, First Grade College Lecturers, Lecturers in Polytechnics and Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges into State Civil Services) (Special) Rules 1990, (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) the following shall be substituted, namely:-
(1) The initial basic pay, of a contract Teacher absorbed under these rules shall be fixed on the date of his absorption at the minimum of the scale of category of posts to which he is absorbed:
Provided that no arrears of pay, on account of re- fixation of pay of such contract teachers in accordance with sub-rule (1), shall be recovered.
Provided further that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Karnataka Civil Services Rules or any other rule made or deemed to have been made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, in case of a Contract Teacher who has already been absorbed under the said rules and whose pay has already been fixed under sub-rule(1) of rule 4 of the said rules prior to the date of Publication of Amendment Rules 1997, then instead of his pay being fixed at the minimum of the scale of pay under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the said rules as amended by the Amendment Rules, 1997, he shall not earn annual increment commencing from the date of the annual increment accruing
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR immediately after the date of such publication, equal to the number of the notional annual increments allowed to him under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the said rules as it existed prior to the date of such publication.
Illustration. If the pay of a contract teacher had been fixed under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 of the said rules before the date of publication of Amendment Rules, 1997, by allowing five notional increments in consideration of his five years service as a contract teacher he shall not earn an equal number of annual increments accruing to him immediately after the date of such publication and thereafter shall earn the sixth annual increment on the date on which it would accrue."
13. Under the 1990 Rules, Rule 4 provided for notional fixation of pay to the absorbed teachers in the scale of pay of the post to which they were absorbed, had they been appointed to such a post as a regular candidate with effect from the date of their appointment on contract basis as on the date of their absorption. However, it denied the arrears of salary for the period of their service on contract basis. But under the 1997 Rules, the said benefit of notional fixation of pay is taken away and absorbed teachers are held to be entitled to minimum of the scale of pay of the post to which they are absorbed as on the date of their absorption. It is settled position of law
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR that a benefit already granted cannot be reversed or taken away by a subsequent Rule giving retrospective effect. Identical Rule was under consideration in Chikkalingaiah's case (supra) and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Paragraph Nos.12, 13, 17, 21, 22 and 24, held as follows:
"12. One can examine the matter from three facets:
one is the scope of the legislative power to bring about the Rule with the retrospective effect resulting into taking away the vested right, second facet is that, even if it is considered that such power is available to the Legislature then also, what is the extra-ordinary circumstance satisfactorily demonstrated before the Court to bring about a statute with the retrospective effect and, the third facet is, whether such statute of 2012 could be said to be an encroachment on the judicial powers of the Court so as to nullify the judgment of the competent Forum in the system of administration of justice or not.
13. We may now consider the aforesaid facets for testing the validity of the impugned Rule for bringing about the substitution of the Rules. It is well settled that whenever any statute or the rule is made by the Legislature as for a sub-ordinate legislation, such rule is to be made with the prospective effect, and if challenged, the burden would be upon the Rule Making Authority to satisfactorily demonstrate the extra-
ordinary circumstances exercising the power to amend or introduce the rule with the retrospective effect. No material is produced except bare statement that the benefit granted by the earlier Rules of 1996 created anomalies amongst the Departments. Further, no material is produced by an exercise undertaken with an object to make the rule for giving retrospective effect while making such subordinate legislation. Hence, we
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR find that when such a burden is not discharged, the rule would not meet with the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. The reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Unni [(2007) 2 SCC 365.] and more particularly observation made at Paragraph Nos. 30 to
36.
17. Therefore, if any such right is sought to be tinkered with or is altered or is attempted to be taken away, it would result into encroachment on the judicial decision of a competent forum and can also be termed as encroachment of the power. At this stage we may usefully refer to the decision made by the Apex Court in the case of S.R. Bhagwat v. State of Mysore [(1995) 6 SCC 16.] , wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the scope of the legislative power for undoing the directions of the Division Bench of the Court and it was observed interalia at paragraph 19 as under:
"19. It was contended by Shri Madhava Reddy that even assuming that the Division Bench judgment remained binding on the State despite the provisions of the impugned Act, all that the Division Bench has directed the State is to consider the case of the petitioners for deemed promotions on the basis of the final seniority list. That has already been done and the petitioners have no grievance for the same. So far as the consequential financial benefits are concerned they would not cover the monetary benefits flowing from such deemed promotions. Even this submission cannot be countenanced. We have already extracted earlier the operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench. It has been in terms directed that if the petitioner is found fit and promoted he may be given all the benefits consequential thereto including the financial benefits. It is, therefore, obvious that once the deemed date of promotion is given to the petitioners concerned it cannot be merely notional promotion re-fixing his pay in the promotional cadre with increments etc. but also would bring in its wake all consequential financial benefits, namely, the salaries that
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR have accrued to them on account of such deemed promotions. Whether such deemed promotions can also entail actual monetary benefits when the employees concerned had not worked on the promotional posts, is a question which could have been agitated by the respondent-State, if so advised, by challenging the order of the Division Bench before this Court. That was not done. Instead it resorted to its legislative power for undoing the said directions of the Division Bench by arming itself with the power to review that judgment by resort to its legislative function. That was clearly not permissible as it was an act of encroachment on the judicial pronouncement of the High Court which had remained binding on the respondent-State. The ratio of the decisions of this Court as discussed earlier clearly get attracted on the facts of the present case and on the same grounds on which this Court invalidated the relevant provisions of Arbitration (Orissa Second Amendment) Act, 1991 in G.C. Kanungo. Section11 sub-section (2) of the impugned Act also has to be declared ultra vires and invalid.
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. Hence, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the Learned Government Advocate that such rights would not fall in the category of vested rights which could be altered by the legislative power. In our considered view, even if the contention is raised to the extent that the constitutional rights cannot be altered and the statutory rights can be altered, then also if the rights were so conferred by the judicial pronouncement and such rights came to be crystalised by acceptance of the judicial pronouncement and one point of time statutory enactment was also made, if all such rights are read with the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, it can be said that by the impugned amendment of Rule by way of deletion of the earlier rule and by way of substitution with the retrospective effect, the constitutional rights are attempted to be taken away. Hence, the impugned amendment would not met with the constitutional validity if the matter is examined,
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR keeping in view the aforesaid first facet for testing the validity of the amendment brought about.
22. In view of the above aforesaid observation and discussion, we find that the impugned amendment in the Rule known as the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of persons appointed on contract basis in the category of posts of Craft Instructors/Junior Instructors (Re-designated as Junior Training Officers) in the Department of Employment and Training (Training Wing) (Special) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 as well as the other rules called as the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of persons appointed on contract basis in the category of posts of Craft Instructors/Junior Instructors (Re-designated as Junior Training Officers) in the Department of Employment and Training (Training Wing) into State Civil Services (Special) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 are constitutional and void, so far as they relate to the employees whose rights were already conferred and accrued by earlier rules which came into force and operated from 15.2.1996 as well as from 19.7.2004.
24. Hence, we find it appropriate to observe that by the Rules of 2012 bringing about the deletion and amendment shall be interpreted to mean that it would not alter the rights already conferred earlier to the petitioners herein and to that extent instead of striking down both the Rules of 2012 as unconstitutional, we find it appropriate to read down the said Rules to that extent."
The above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench would aptly apply to the facts of the present case.
14. Learned Additional Government Advocate contended that Halappa's case (supra) would have application to the facts of the present case and the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR Tribunal under impugned order observed that Chikkalingaiah's case (supra) would not take note of Halappa's case (supra) and proceeded to hold that past contract service cannot be counted for the purpose of fixation of pay and other benefits.
15. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Halappa's case (supra). The Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the Halappa's case (supra) and blindly followed it to dismiss the applications. Halappa's case (supra) also involved the same 1990 Rules. The Tribunal as well as this Court held that instead of benefit of Rule 4 of 1990 Rules, the petitioners therein would be entitled to benefit of Rule 41A of the KCSRs. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court found fault with such finding of the Tribunal as well as this Court and set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as this Court, which would mean that the petitioners therein would be entitled to the benefit of Rule 4 of the 1990 Rules.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR
16. Paragraph Nos.4, 7 and 9 of Halappa's case (supra) read as follows:
"4. Subsequently, regular recruitment took place in which the respondents were also participants and they were regularly recruited into the government service and have been appointed in the category of posts of Primary School Teachers, Secondary School Teachers, Government Junior College Lecturers, First Grade College Lecturers, Lecturers in Polytechnics, Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges. Thereafter, the State Government framed certain rules known as the Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of Persons Appointed on Contract Basis in the Category of Posts of Primary School Teachers, Secondary School Teachers, Government Junior College Lecturers, First Grade College Lecturers, Lecturers in Polytechnics, Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges, into State Civil Services) (Special) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Absorption Rules"). It was provided therein that irrespective of the general recruitment rules and other rules in that regard a contract teacher will be absorbed in the category of post to which he was initially appointed on contract basis other than the posts of Lecturers in Government Junior Colleges. It was also provided therein that the initial basic pay of a contract teacher absorbed under these Rules shall be fixed in the scale of pay of the category of the post to which he is appointed at a stage equal to the basic pay that he would have been eligible to draw had he been appointed to such post as a regular candidate in accordance with the rules of recruitment with effect from the date of his appointment as a contract teacher. It was however made clear that he would not be entitled to any arrears of salary for the period of service rendered by him prior to the date of absorption under these Rules.
7. The appointments to which the contract employees or the stipendiary graduates joined are very precarious appointments, the same being terminable at the end of one year or earlier than even before the regular
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR recruitment takes place. It was made clear that their salary is fixed at the emolument which is less than the minimum of the pay scale attached to the post and their service as rendered will not be counted for the purpose of further service in the Government. If this position is clear, as to how an analogy could have been drawn between contract employees and the local candidates whose services are regularly absorbed is difficult to understand. Subsequently the local candidate is appointed to a post which is vacant and he will be absorbed in the same post and appropriate benefits will be given to him. To invoke Rule 41-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules would be out of place in a case of this nature because the intendment of the said Rule is that if a person has been appointed as a local candidate and if he is likely to be absorbed in the regular service but in a different post, certain benefits are given to him. That is not the situation in the present case. Similarly, in the case of a regularly appointed candidate if he is appointed in another post, continuity would be maintained so far as emoluments are concerned. Such a situation in the present case will not arise at all because it is not the continuation of the original appointment made which is on a contract basis and contract comes to an end either on the expiry of the term or on a regular candidate reporting to duty. Particularly when the contract itself makes it clear that the service shall not be counted for any purpose, the claim of the respondents could not have been brought under Rule 41-A at all.
9. In that view of the matter, we do not think the view taken by the Tribunal in Parameshwarappa case is justified and, therefore, that view shall stand overruled. Thus, we have no option but to allow these appeals because both the Tribunal and the High Court have proceeded on the basis of Parameshwarappa case. The orders made by the High Court and the Tribunal stand set aside. However, we make it clear that if any emoluments have already been paid to the respondents in terms of the orders made by the Tribunal as confirmed by the High Court, the same shall not be recovered but in other respects the order made by us shall be given full effect to."
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:33806-DB WP No. 39262 of 2018 C/W WP No. 14594 of 2022 HC-KAR
17. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions are allowed in-terms of the order dated 07.03.2017 in W.P. No.21523-21575/2016 by observing that the 1997 Rules as well as 2012 Rules shall be interpreted to mean that it would not alter the rights already conferred under 1990 and 1996 Rules to the petitioners respectively and instead of striking down both the Rules as unconstitutional, it is read down to the above extent.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24