SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19437

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J
Sumangala B. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 18075 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gaurav G. K.
For the Respondents: G. Ramesh Naik, N. Jagadish Baliga

Employees who resigned technically under government service rules to join another public institution, with prior permission, retain their continuity of service. They are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme if they initially entered public service before the cutoff date, as pension is a protected constitutional property right.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - Pensionary benefits - Technical resignation as per Rule 252(b) of the Civil Services Rules - Applicability of Old Pension Scheme - Where an employee, while in service, obtains proper permission to apply for a post in another institution and subsequently tenders a technical resignation, such resignation does not constitute a cessation of public service. Consequently, the past service is protected, and the employee is entitled to continue under the Old Pension Scheme if they were originally recruited prior to the cutoff date of the New Pension Scheme. (Paras 5, 8, 9)

(B) Pension - Right to property - Right to receive pension is not a bounty but a vested right earned through service, treated as property under Article 300-A of the Constitution - It cannot be withheld by mere executive fiat or administrative instruction. (Paras 5, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former employee at an educational institution, challenged a notification that denied her retirement benefits. The petitioner had previously served in another state-aided institution and had obtained permission to apply to the current institution. The petitioner contended that her resignation from the previous post was a 'technical resignation' under the relevant state civil service rules, thereby entitling her to the continuation of the Old Pension Scheme as she had initially entered public service prior to the introduction of the New Pension Scheme.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner’s move to the new institution was permitted and followed procedures analogous to technical resignation, ensuring continuity of service. The court held that the denial of pensionary benefits by the respondents based on administrative interpretation was unsustainable as it failed to recognize the protection of past service afforded by statutory rules. The benefit of the Old Pension Scheme must be extended to employees who entered service before the introduction of the new scheme and moved via technical resignation.

Issues: Whether an employee who moves between public-funded institutions via technical resignation is entitled to the Old Pension Scheme, and whether an executive notification can deprive an employee of earned pensionary benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Rule 252(b) of the Civil Services Rules serves to protect the service of employees who transition between institutions with proper permission. Since the right to pension is a property right, it cannot be curtailed by administrative orders that contradict statutory provisions or established jurisprudence regarding service continuity.

Result: Petition allowed. Impugned notification quashed. Respondents directed to grant benefits under the Old Pension Scheme.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks retirement benefits under the old pension scheme following prior precedent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. prior judicial precedent directly applies to the present case; impugned notification quashed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

WRIT PETITION NO. 18075 OF 2025 (S-RES)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. MIMS/SIBBANDI(1)/50/2019-20 DATED 12.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 PRODUCED AT 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.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Issue an appropriate writ / order / direction quashing Notification bearing No.MIMS/Sibbandi(1)/50/2019-20 dated 12.05.2022 issued by the Respondent No.4 produced at Annexure – A;

b) Issue an appropriate writ / order / direction directing the Respondents to provide retirement benefits to the Petitioner such as pension under the Old Pension Scheme along with arrears and interest from the date of entitlement and accrual till the date of its realization, gratuity, etc.,

c) Issue an appropriate writ / order / direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent no.4 and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order of this Court in the case of Dr. M.S. Siddegowda Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – W.P.No.22644/2024 dated 17.03.2026,, in order to contend that the present petition deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of the said order.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the present petition is directly and squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Dr. M.S. Siddegowda Vs. The State of Karnataka and others – W.P.No.22644/2024 dated 17.03.2026, which reads as under:

“In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“1. Issue any appropriate Writ/Order quashing the endorsement dated 18.06.2024 (Annexure-A); bearing No. «ªÀiï ì/¹§âA¢(1)/209/2008-09 issued by respondent No.3.

2. Issue any appropriate Writ/Order directing the respondents to provide retirement benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc.;

3. Pass any other Writ/directions/Orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner joined as an Associate Professor in respondent No.4-Institution on 25.01.1994 and continued to work there up to 30.10.2006. On 16.03.2005, the petitioner submitted a representation/request to respondent No.4-Institution seeking permission to apply to the post of Associate Professor of Pathology in Karnataka State Government Autonomous Institution, which was allowed/permitted by respondent No.4 vide Official Memorandum dated 28.03.2005 at Annexure-D to the petition. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner applied to respondent No.3-Institution, which appointed him as an Associate Professor with effect from 24.02.2006 and the petitioner reported to service on 31.10.2006. Subsequently, on 30.09.2023, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and thereafter submitted a representation to respondent No.3 seeking ben

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top