Employees Of Karnataka Media Academy And State Temperance Board Are Not Govt Servants, Can't Claim Pension: High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that employees of the Karnataka Media Academy or the Karnataka State Temperance Board are not eligible to pension as Government servants, noting that there was no provision making their service pensionable under relevant rules.

A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil held thus while allowing a batch of appeals filed by the State Government questioning an order of single judge which had directed the government to pay pension and arrears to the writ petitioners.

However, it said, “It is for the Government to take an informed decision taking note of all relevant aspects of the matter as also the orders passed in respect of other Institutions and to take a decision whether the employment of the writ petitioners is to be made pensionable.”

Thus it directed:

“Writ Petitions shall stand ordered directing the appellant Government to take up the request made by the writ petitioners seeking pension and to pass an informed order thereon after hearing the Media Academy and the Temperance Board as well within a period of four months.”

Background

The appellant state government had contended that the employees of the Karnataka State Temperance Board or the Media Academy are not in the service of the Government and they are not Government servants in terms of the definition as provided under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (KCSR).

By the omission of Rule 2-A from the KCSRs by Notification dated 29.01.2014, it is made doubly clear that persons who are not Government employees would not be entitled to the benefit or applicability of Rule 285 of the KCSRs which provides for a retiring pension.

While the petitioners submitted that the fact that the academy and the board have failed to frame Cadre & Recruitment Rules ('C&R Rules' for short), would make no difference to the situation since the appointment was in a Government Organization and in a post duly approved by the Government.

It was submitted that after having made the provisions of the KCSRs applicable to employees like the petitioner, the appellant is estopped from claiming that the provisions with regard to pension are not applicable to them.

Further, in respect of employees of several other Boards and Statutory Bodies, the KCSR is made applicable and pension is granted by the Government itself.

Findings

The bench noted that in the case of the Media Academy, it was clear that there was a provision in the Bye-laws, which said that the employees will be governed by the provisions of the KCSRs insofar as their pay, allowances and other conditions of service are concerned.

However, there was no provision in the Bye-laws making the service of the employees of either the Temperance Board or the Media Academy pensionable in terms of the KCSRs. It said,

“In the case of the Temperance Board as well as the Media Academy, the situation obtaining is that they are obviously not Grant-in Aid Institutions and there is no provision either in the Bye laws, Regulations, C&R Rules or in any executive order applicable to them, which makes their service pensionable in terms of KCSRs.”

It referred to Rule 222 which states that service of a Government servant does not qualify for pension unless, the service is under Government, the employment is substantive and permanent and the service must be paid for by Government.

Following which it held:

“In the light of the specific definition of Government servant, under the KCS (CC&A) Rules and the clear provisions of the KCSRs which makes pension applicable only to Government Servants, we are of the clear view that the contention that employees of the Media Academy or the Temperance Board are eligible to pension as Government servants cannot be accepted.”

It rejected the contention of employees that in respect of several other Institutions, like Silk Board, the Government has passed orders extending the benefit of pension to the employees.

The court said “The very fact that the Government has passed such orders and the writ petitioners seek to place reliance on such orders would clearly prove that such orders, making the pension rules applicable to employees other than Government employees, would clearly show that the Government, in its discretion, has to pass such orders to make pension available to such employees. In the absence of such orders, the employees of Institutions like the Temperance Board and the Media Academy cannot claim that they are entitled to pension as a matter of right.”

Accordingly it allowed the appeals and review petition.

Appearance: Additional Advocate General Reuben Jacob, a/w AGA Mamatha Shetty, Prathibha R. for the State.

Advocate Pruthveen Prahlad Kattimani, Advocate Ranganatha S Jois, a/w Advocate S.Y. Rodagi, Advocate Ramakrishna N, Advocate Vandana N, appearing for the employees.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 420

Case Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND YALLAGAIAH G & Others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.150 OF 2024 (S-R) C/W CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.88 OF 2024 REVIEW PETITION NO.526 OF 2024 WRIT APPEAL NO.164 OF 2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO.175 OF 2024 (S-R) WRIT APPEAL NO.267 OF 2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO.1689 OF 2024.

Click Here To Read/Download Order