Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Udaykumar Neelakanthrao Kulkarni – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, Rep By, The Principal Secretary Department Of School Education And Literacy – Respondent
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 follo
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
