Private Aided Educational Institution Employees Can't Claim Monetary Benefits From State For Non-Grant Period: Karnataka High Court

Background Facts

The respondent was serving as an Assistant Teacher at W/A Hemavathi High School, which is a private aided educational institution. The Institution was taken in grant-in-aid. Therefore, Assistant Teacher filed a writ petition. He claimed arrears of salary and other monetary benefits from the State for the period preceding the admission of his post in grant-in-aid. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition.

Aggrieved by the same, State of Karnataka challenged it in the writ appeal before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.

It was argued by the State that the issue stood settled by a judgment, wherein it was held that service rendered during the non-grant period was to be taken into account only for notional fixation of pay and consequential benefits. However, the arrears of salary cannot be claimed from the State for the period preceding admission to grant-in-aid.

On the other hand, it was argued by the Assistant Teacher that he was entitled to the relief granted by the Single Judge. Therefore, the benefits of grant-in-aid should be extended to him with effect from 04.08.2005.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the judgment referred to by the State held that mere financial constraints or burden on the State exchequer cannot be a reason to deny a benefit to a similarly situated employee.

It was further observed that if the employees of private aided educational institutions are similarly situated to government employees, possessing the same qualifications and discharging identical duties, then mere financial difficulties cannot be a permissible basis for denying them parity in service benefits.

It was further observed that it is duty of the State to maintain the same standard of education in private educational institutions and Government institutions. Therefore, it is responsibility of the State to provide similar benefit in all respects that are available to State Government teachers to that of teachers of private educational institutions, that too, when the private educational institutions are discharging the duties and responsibilities of State in the matter of imparting education.

It was held by the Division Bench that the liability to pay salary during the non-grant period continues to rest upon the management of the concerned institution. It was further held that the employees shall not be entitled to claim arrears of salary or any other monetary benefits from the State for the period preceding the admission of the post to grant-in-aid.

It was further observed that the Assistant Teacher was claiming to be taken into grant-in-aid with effect from 04.08.2005, for which he had filed Writ Petition in 2023. The Single Judge without looking at the gross delay and laches allowed the writ petition.

With the aforesaid observations, the order passed by the Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State was disposed of by the Division Bench.

Counsel for the Appellants : Ravindranath, Aga

Counsel for the Respondents : G.M. Chandrashekar, Advocate