Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28804

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G. Pandit, Rajesh Rai K, JJ
G Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department – Respondent
WP No. 17549 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.M Nayak
For the Respondents: Harisha A.S

Employees engaged against sanctioned posts for long periods are entitled to regularization and pensionary benefits, regardless of the initial temporary nature of their appointment or payment from contingency funds, as pension is a constitutional right protected under Article 300A.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21, 267 and 300A - Service Law - Regularization - Pension - Non-pensionable establishment - Petitioner, appointed as a temporary employee against a sanctioned post and paid from a contingency fund, served for three decades without break - State rejected claim for regularization and pension upon retirement - Court held that extracting perennial work from an employee under a temporary label for decades while denying service benefits is arbitrary and violates constitutional guarantees - Pension is not a bounty but a constitutional right and property protected under Article 300A - Service rendered in non-pensionable establishment or against contingency fund counts towards qualifying service if the employee was appointed after due process against sanctioned posts. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23)

(B) Service Law - Regularization - Judicial precedent and parity - Where the State has regularized similarly situated employees pursuant to court directions and such orders have attained finality, treating the petitioner with a different yardstick is discriminatory and violative of Article 14. (Para 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a cooker on a temporary basis against a sanctioned post. He served continuously for thirty years, drawing salary from a contingency fund. Upon superannuation, his claim for regularization and consequential pensionary benefits was rejected by the authorities on the ground that there were no rules providing for the regularization of employees paid from the contingency fund.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner performed regular, perennial duties against a sanctioned post for three decades. The utilization of contingency funds for recurring salary payments intended for permanent functions was characterized as an exploitative device. Denying pension after such long and continuous service was held to be contrary to constitutional principles and judicial policy.

Issues: Whether an employee paid from a contingency fund in a non-pensionable post is entitled to pensionary benefits after long and continuous service, and whether the claim can be rejected based on the nature of the initial engagement when similarly situated employees were granted regularization.

Ratio Decidendi: Service rendered for long periods in sanctioned posts, even if initially labelled as temporary or contingency-based, must be counted as qualifying service for pension. The State, as a model employer, cannot use temporary labels to deny constitutional rights to social security, particularly when the nature of work is perennial and the employee has served for decades.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; respondents directed to regularize the service upon completion of ten years of service and grant consequential pensionary benefits.

Table of Content
1. factual history of non-pensionable, contingency-funded employment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments on regularization rights vs. contingency fund staffing. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. nature of contingency funds vis-a-vis long-term public employment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. precedents mandating pension for long-serving contingency employees. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. prohibition of arbitrary differential treatment for similarly situated employees. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CETIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2022 PASSED IN A.No-4556/2019 BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WP.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.03.2022 passed in Application No.4556/2019 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the Government by its Order No. ED 114 TPI 59 dated 23.07.1962 sanctioned the post of Assistant Cook, along with other posts, in the hostel of the School of Mines, Coramandel, KGF. After due process, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Cook on a temporary basis on 03.02.1989 and reported for duty on 08.02.1989. Thereafter, without any break or interruption, he rendered continuous full-time service in the same post without any order confirming or absorbing his services into a pensionable post and, accordingly, retired from service on 30.03.2019 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

3. It is pertinent to observe that the petitioner was appointed after following due process and was extended the pay scale admissible to the post. Similarly, appointments were made after 01.07.1984 to the post of Assistant Cook and other posts on a temporary basis with a regular time scale of pay, and the remuneration for these posts was paid from the contingency fund, along with other monetary benefits. However, no orders were passed by the respondents absorbing the services of 14 Group ‘D’ employees, including the petitioner, into regular pensionable posts. As such, the petitioner, along with others, submitted a representation on 24.08.2007 seeking regularization/absorption of their services.

4. In view of the above developments, certain employees among the said 14 employees, who had been appointed after 01.07.1984 and were drawing salary from the contingency fund, approached the Tribunal seeking consideration of their candidature for absorption of their services into pensionable posts by filing Applications in A.Nos.1349/2009, 2012/2015, and 2247/2011 to 2247/2011.

5. The Tribunal, vide order dated 28.07.2010, held that they were entitled to regularization as a one-time measure, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and Others - (2006) 4 SCC 1. Accordingly, their services were regularized. Drawing strength from the said order, as the petitioner was similarly situated, he filed an application before the Tribunal in Application No.7495/2016 seeking consideration of his representation and extension of the benefit of absorption into a pensionable post. The Tribunal, vide order dated 25.07.2018, directed the respondents to consider his representation. However, the petitioner's claim was rejected by the respondents vide endorsement dated 20.06.2019 on the ground that he had joined service after 01.04.1984 and that his services could not be regularized, as there was no provision under the rules for such regularization. It was further stated that the persons who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28804

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAS.G. Pandit, Rajesh Rai K, JJG Mohan – AppellantVersusPrincipal Secretary, Higher Education Department – RespondentWP No. 17549 of 2022

Employees engaged against sanctioned posts for long periods are entitled to regularization and pensionary benefits, regardless of the initial temporary nature of their appointment or payment from contingency funds, as pension is a constitutional right protected under Article 300A.

Cases Referred (2)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G. Pandit, Rajesh Rai K, JJ
G Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department – Respondent
WP No. 17549 of 2022