U. RAGHAVENDRA ACHARYA AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
U. RAGHAVENDRA ACHARYA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
MAY 12, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND PP. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Karnataka Civil Services Rules: Rule 296. 
Pension-Calculation of-With reference to emoluments last drawn- -
Teachers had retired during the period I. I. 1996 to 31.3. 1996 fi·om Regional 
Engineering College which was established by the Central Government at 
the request of the State Government-It was a centrally aided institution-
Teachers of the Uniwrsity or Private Aided Colleges of the State were being 
D paid the same salary as was being paid to the teachers of the Government 
Colleges-The revised scales of pay as recommended by the Pay Revision 
Committee became applicable to the teachers of the Engineering College 
with effect from I.I. I 986-The UGC scales of pay were applicable to them--
The Central Government revised the scales of pay of its employees with effect 
E 
F 
G 
H 
from 1.1.1996-The State Government issued appropriate notification 
extending the UGC pay scales as revised from 1. I. 1996, inter alia, to the 
teachers of the Government and Aided Colleges-However, a notification 
dated 22. 7.2000 was issued by the State Government extending the UGC pay 
scales from I .1.1996 tu the teachers, librarians, etc. of the <Jovernmentl 
Aided Culleges--A further notification dated 8.8.2000 was issued extending 
the AICTE pay scale~ from 1.1.1996 to them - But the High Court held that 
the revised scales of pay were not applicable to those teachers who had 
retired during the period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.1998-Correctness of-
Held: The teachers of the Engif;eering College were treated to be at par with 
the holders of similar posts in Government Co//eges--The said teachers 
indisputably are governed by the UGC scales of pay--They are entitled to 
the pensionary benefits also- -Pension is not a bounty-It is treated to be a 
deferred salary--The said teachers had retired from service-The State, 
therefore, could not have amended the statutory Rules adversely affecting 
their pension with retrospective effect-Hence, the swd teachers could 
nut have been deprived of retiral benefits calculated with effect Ji-om 
/. /. J 996. 
582 
-
U. RAGHAVENDRAACHARYA v. STATE 
583 
Words & Phrases: 
"Emoluments"-Meaning of-In the context of Rule 296 of the 
Karnataka Civil Services Rules. 
The appellants were the retired teachers of the University or 
Private Aided Colleges and had retired during the period 1.1.96 to 
31.3.1998. The appellants were being paid the same salary as was being 
paid to the teachers of the Government colleges. The appellants had 
retired from the Karnataka Regional Engineering College, which was 
established by the Government of India at the request of the State 
Government. It was a centrally aided institution and was notified by the 
Government of India and the State Government as a Deemed University 
with effect from 26.6.2002. 
The revised scales of pay as recommended by the Pay Revision 
Committee became applicable to the appellants with effect from 1.1.1986. 
The UGC scales of pay were applicable to them. The Central Government 
revised the scales of pay of its employees with effect from 1.1.1996. The 
State Government issued appropriate notification extending the UGC 
pay scales as revised from 1.1.1996, inter alia, to the teachers of the 
Government and Aided Colleges. However, a notification dated 22.7.2000 
was issued by the State Government extending the UGC pay scales from 
1.1.1996 to the teachers, librarians, etc. of the Government/Aided 
Colleges. A further notification dated 8.8.2000 was issued extending the 
AICTE pay scales from 1.1.1996 to them. 
The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court questioning 
the said notifications dated 22.7.2000 and 18.8.2000. A Single Judge of 
the High Court allowed the writ petitions holding that the revised scales 
of pay became applicable to those teachers who had retired during the 
period from 1.1.1996 to 31.3.1998 and that they could not have been 
deprived of the said benefit. But the Division Bench of the High Court 
allowed the appeal preferred by the State against the said judgment. 
The review petitions filed thereagainst were dismissed. Hence the 
appeals. 
The following question of law arose before the Court: 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Whether the appellants having been given the benefit of the revised 
H 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996 could h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.