US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G.PANDIT AND K. V. ARAVIND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
SRI M N SRINIVAS – Respondent
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioner-State is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed in different applications directing the State Government to grant additional qualifying service under Rule 247A of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCSRs’, for short), as it stood on the date of respondents' appointment.
2. The moot question involved in these batch of writ petitions is as to whether the respondents herein would be entitled for adding qualifying service under Rule 247A of KCSRs as it stood on the date of their appointment or as it stood on the date of their retirement.
3. The respondents were initially appointed as daily wagers/stipendiary graduates in several departments. At the time of initial appointment of the respondents as daily wagers/stipendiary graduates, all the respondents were aged more than 30 years. Subsequently, their services were regularised and they were absorbe
Daily wage employees regularized as civil servants are entitled to additional qualifying service under KCSR Rule 247A, affirming equal treatment based on judicial precedents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rules permitted counting of past service for the purpose of increment and pension, and the delay in approaching the Tribunal was not a val....
Promotion in public service requires availability of vacancies and cannot be guaranteed; the Tribunal is limited to recommending consideration, not issuing binding directives.
Retrospective amendments to pension rules cannot divest vested rights of retired employees regarding pension calculations.
The Tribunal held that previous service in an autonomous body qualifies for counting towards pensionary benefits in a new government position.
A court may allow pension benefits by recognizing prior daily wage service despite the absence of regularization, emphasizing principles of justice and judicial precedents.
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
Listen Article