IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Udaykumar Neelakanthrao Kulkarni - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Rep By, The Principal Secretary Department Of School Education And Literacy, - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 104588 of 2025 (S-RES)
Decided On : 15-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's primary requests to court. (Para 1) |
| 2. previous judgments impact current case. (Para 2 , 3) |
ORDER :
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
a. “CALL for records from the Respondents pertaining to the impugned order.
b. ISSUE A Writ in the nature of Writ Certiorari that section 5(1) of the Karnataka Part-Time Job Oriented Course Employees Absorption Act 2011 as unconstitutional and unenforceable (Annexure-B) and CONSEQUENTLY QUASH the impugned condition No.1 in the Absorption order dated 03-02-2014 (ANNEXURE-C).
c. ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER directing the Respondents to reckon the service of the Petitioner from the date of initial entry till the date of regularization for the purpose of fixation of pay, pensionary benefits and further direct them to pay all consequential monetary benefits including pension forthwith.
d. PASS any other order as it deem fit as per facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and Equity.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, in unison, submit that the issue involved in the present lis stands answered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.103754/2025 and connected matters, disposed of on 16th October, 2025. The relevant portion reads as follows:
1. “Heard Sri.Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kirthilata R. Patil, learned HCGP for respondent-State.
2. The petitioners in all these cases are identical to those who had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition No.105996/2016 and connected matters. This Court, while considering the services rendered by persons possessing job- oriented diploma qualifications and seeking absorption from a retrospective date, i.e., the date of their initial appointment, had negatived such a claim. However, the Court had directed the State to consider their cases for grant of pension, taking into account that the particular cadre was already dwindling in number.
3. The present petitioners are similarly situated as those in the earlier batch of petitions. Therefore, it is necessary for the State to consider the cases of these petitioners as well, if such consideration has already ensued pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 20.12.2023. This Court, in the aforesaid judgment, has held as follows:
“2. The facts in brief are as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as a part time worker/teacher in Tailoring and Embroidery in Job Oriented Diploma Course at the 5th respondent/B.R.Ambekar Education Society, Shidenur on 01-08-1991. It is the claim of the petitioner that her appointment was approved by the competent authority on 28-09-1991. Later she joined the 6th respondent/B.E.M.S. Arts and Commerce College, Byadagi on 15-07-1992. Owing to the fact that the petitioner and several other employees working in job oriented courses had to be regularized, the Government of Karnataka notified the Karnataka Part Time Job Oriented Course Employees Absorption Act, 2011 (‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner, like every other job oriented course employee, was absorbed under the Act. She continued to work after the absorption and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2013. It is the claim of the petitioner that she is entitled to terminal benefits for having worked close to 22 years under the services of the State Government. That having not been granted, she has knocked at the doors of this Court in the present petition seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for grant of pension and other terminal benefits.
3. During the pendency of the petition, the petition is amended to seek a declaration with regard to the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Act. All other companion petitions also raise a similar challenge. The respective dates of entry into service and date of retirement vary, but in effect, every petition seek a declaration that Section 5 of the Act to be declared

Absorption conditions in service law restrict past service benefits, emphasizing that claims must align with statutory stipulations, thus petitions challenging their constitutionality are unfounded.
The court reaffirmed the right to equitable treatment in employment, necessitating the re-evaluation of absorption-related pay and benefits for employees absorbed under the U.P. Absorption Rules.
Inaction by the State in not regularizing long-serving employees cannot deprive them of valid pension benefits under existing rules, irrespective of completed qualifying service requirements.
State delays in regularizing services do not justify withholding pension benefits for long-serving employees; equal treatment and fair engagement practices must be upheld.
The principle of parity mandates that similarly situated individuals must be treated equally in matters of service absorption and benefits.
The court upheld that differential treatment in service absorption timelines does not violate constitutional rights as long as prior benefits remain intact.
An employee's service cannot be deemed broken due to the employer's failure to absorb them properly, violating natural justice principles; service must be counted for pension and related benefits.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.