Karnataka HC salary release from August 2024

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 30, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

K Mahesha vs State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16029
WP No. 16581 of 2025

               HC-KAR

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                        BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 16581 OF 2025 (S-RES)
               BETWEEN:

                     K. MAHESHA
                     S/O. K.B. KRISHNAMURTHY,
                     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
                     WORKING AS LECTURER,
                     SRI SIDDALINGESHWARA B A INTEGRATED
                     KANNADA PANDITH COLLEGE,
                     SRI SIDDAGANGA MUTT,
                     TUMKUR - 572 104,
                     AND RESIDING AT KENKERE VILLAGE,
                     SUGGANAHALLI POST, KUDUR HOBLI,
                     MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 561 101.
                                                           ...PETITIONER
               (BY SRI. M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI AND:
B
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES-1), M S BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE-01,
BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

               2.    KARNATAKA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY,
                     PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD,
                     CHAMARAJAPETE, BANGALORE-18,
                     REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.
                          -2-
                                      NC: 2026:KHC:16029
                                   WP No. 16581 of 2025

HC-KAR

1. SECRETARY, SRI SIDDAGANGA VIDYA SAMSTHE ® SRI SIDDAGANGA MUTT, TUMKUR - 572 104.

2. THE PRINCIPAL,
   SRI SIDDALINGESHWARA
   B A INTEGRATED KANNADA
   PANDITH COLLEGE,
   SRI SIDDAGANGA MUTT,
   TUMKUR - 572 104.
   ...RESPONDENTS
   (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1;
   SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
   SRI. CHANNABSAPPA S.N, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
   R4 - SERVED)

   THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
   CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PARYING TO DIRECTING
   RESPONDENTS TO TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO RELEASE THE
   SALARY OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE MONTH OF AUGUST
   2024 AND FURTHER DIRECT THEM TO PAY THE MONTHLY
   SALARY AS AND WHEN THE SAME BECOMES DUE TO THE
   PETITIONER AND ETC.,

   THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
   ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                   ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner is before this Court
   

seeking the following reliefs:

a. Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing respondents to
take immediate steps to release the salary of the
petitioner from the month of August 2024 and

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

further direct them to pay the monthly salary as
and when the same becomes due to the petitioner;

b. Grant such other appropriate writ, order or direction
as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case including the cost, in the
interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the

material on record.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

though the petitioner was ready and willing to continue to

work as a English lecturer at the respondent Nos.3 and

4/College which is affiliated to respondent No.2/University,

the respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not permit the petitioner

to work from August 2024 onwards and did not pay the

requisite salary payable to the petitioner from August

2024 onwards and as such, the petitioner is before this

Court by way of the present petition.

1. He further submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4

have been paying salaries to the petitioner and other staff

                                       NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

pursuant to the grant-in-aid received by them from the

respondent No.1/State. Respondent No.1/State has

already transferred the requisite amount to respondent

No.2/University who has not forwarded the same to

respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the purpose of release in

favour of the Petitioner.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a

memo enclosing a copy of the communication dated

05.01.2026 issued by respondent No.2/University to

respondent No.1/State, proposing transfer of petitioner

and others from respondent No.4/College at Tumakuru to

Sri Medha Dakshinamoorthy Samskrita College, Gokarna

and respondent No.1/State may be directed to give effect

to and implement the said proposal immediately so as to

enable the petitioner to work as a lecturer in the said

College at Gokarna within a stipulated time frame.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner place reliance

on the judgment dated 02.05.2025 rendered by this Court

                                           NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

in the case of Omprakasha Vs. the State of Karnataka

and Others passed in WP No.205675/2016 (S-RES),

which is extracted as under:

1. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1997 as a
   Junior Training Officer ("JTO", for short) in Respondent
   No.5--Institute, which was an Industrial Training
   Center. This Industrial Training Institute ("the ITI", for
   short) was admitted to a grant on 28.03.1998 and the
   post of the petitioner was also admitted to a salary
   grant. In other words, by virtue of respondent No.5
   being admitted to the grant, the petitioner became an
   employee of an aided institution.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was
   discharging his duties and was receiving his salaries
   regularly till August 2010. But, from August 2010, he
   was not being paid his salaries. Since the salaries were
   not paid, it is stated that he made a representation to
   the Principal of the Institute for release of his salaries
   and since no steps were taken, he was constrained to
   ultimately approach this Court in Writ Petition No.80868
   of 2012 seeking for a direction to the respondents
   therein to release his salaries.

3. It is stated that ultimately, this Court on 27.01.2016
   disposed of the writ petition, holding that the petitioner
   had to invoke the alternative remedy available under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for
   short, 'the Act'). The petitioner states that, accordingly,
   he approached the Government under Section 131 of
   the Act and this petition was dismissed on the ground
   that the power under Section 133 of the Act was not
   available to direct release of salaries.

4. The petitioner therefore states that he was once
   again constrained to approach this Court requesting for
   direction to be issued to pay salaries from August 2010.
   NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

1. The State Government has entered appearance and
   filed its objections. It is admitted in the counter that the
   petitioner was indeed appointed as a JTO in the
   Draughtsman (Mechanical) ['DMM'] Trade in respondent
   No.5--Institute and it is stated that since there was a
   shortage of admissions in the course of DMM Trade, the
   petitioner was assigned with some other work (even
   according to the petitioner). It is stated that since the
   petitioner has not imparted training in the DMM Trade
   as there were no admissions from August 2010, there
   was no provision under the Grant-in-Aid Code of 1987
   to pay him the salary grants. 6. It is sought to be
   contended that since the Management had assigned
   work pertaining to other trades, it was the responsibility
   of the Management for payment of the salary. In short,
   the Government states that since there were no
   admissions in the DMM Trade, it is not obliged to pay
   the petitioner his salary.

2. The Management has also filed its objections. The
   Management also admits that the petition was
   appointed as a JTO in the DMM Trade, and as per the
   Government Order dated 15.11.1997, the post of the
   petitioner along with 22 other posts were admitted to
   salary grant. 8. It is also admitted that the petitioner
   did receive his salary from August 2010 and even
   thereafter, he used to come to the College and was
   signing the Attendance Register but was not assigned
   with any work. The Management states that it paid
   the petitioner monthly allowances up to March 2015
   on humanitarian grounds and on the directions of the
   President, it had terminated petitioner's services by
   an order dated 27.06.2017. 9. It is also stated that
   this order of termination has been challenged by the
   petitioner by filing an appeal in EAT No.4 of 2017, and
   the matter is still pending adjudication. 10. In
   paragraph 4 of its counter, it is stated that on
   08.11.2010, the Joint Director of Employment and
   Training had visited the Institution and had inspected
   the functioning of all the trades and he then found

                                        NC: 2026:KHC:16029
   

HC-KAR

     that the admissions to the DMM trade were not
     satisfactory and he orally directed the institute to stop
     the payment of salaries to the petitioner with
     immediate effort. 11. The Management states that
     the Secretary in fact, addressed a letter calling upon
     the Joint Director to issue a written direction in this
     regard and accordingly, by a written communication
     to the Principal dated 14.12.2010, the Joint Director
     stated that the payment of salaries to the petitioner
     was improper. It is also stated that on 14.11.2011,
     the Trust which was running the Institution had
     directed the name of the petitioner to be included in
     the salary bill. But, a notice was issued by the Joint
     Director stating that the admissions to DMM Trade
     was less than 50% and in view of the above fact, the
     Joint Director had warned that the grant-in-aid salary
     of the institution itself would be held up.

1. The Management states that admission to the
   DMM Trade had almost stopped though there were
   some sporadic admissions. It is therefore the case of
   the Management that the salary was stopped since
   there were no admissions in the DMM Trade and also
   because the Department had stated that the salaries
   could not be paid to the petitioner. 13. In the light of
   the above facts, the question that would arise for
   consideration is as to: " Whether an employee of an
   aided institution whose post is admitted to salary
   grant can be denied payment of a salary on the
   ground that there were no admissions to the course
   to which he had been appointed."

2. The Karnataka Education Act, 1983 was enacted
   and brought into force in the year 19951 with the
   objective -

3. Short    title,  extent,     application    and
    commencement.-
   

(1) This Act may be called the Karnataka Education
Act, 1983.

(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Karnataka.
NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

     (3) It applies to all educational institutions and
     tutorial institutions in the State except,- (i)
     institutions for scientific or technical education
     financed by the Central Government, and declared by
     Parliament by law to be institutions of national
     importance; (ii) institutions of higher education which
     shall be deemed to be University as declared by the
     Central Government by a notification, under [section 3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1221603/) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
     (Central Act III of 1956); (iii) institutions established
     or maintained and administered by or affiliated to or
     recognised by the University of Agricultural Sciences
     in so far as the matter pertaining to them are dealt
     within the [University of Agricultural Sciences Act,
     1963](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18447140/) [(Karnataka Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55147955/) 22 of 1963); (iiia) Educational
     Institutions affiliated to or recognised by the Council
     of Indian School Certificate Examination or Central
     Board of Secondary Education respectively but
     subject to the conditions that the provisions of [Section 5-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51521824/), [48](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181319850/), [112-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102201779/), and [124-A](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41572471/) of this Act shall
     continue to apply to these institutions; (iv) in so far
     as the matters pertaining to colleges and institutions
     are dealt within,- x x x (v) Such other class or classes
     of institutions, subject to (iv) in so far as the matters
     pertaining to colleges and institutions are dealt
     within,- x x x (v) Such other class or classes of
     institutions, subject to such conditions and to such
     extent as the State Government may, by notification,
     specify: Provided that nothing in Chapter III, [section
     35](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198737942/) of Chapter V, Chapter VII and Chapters IX to XV
     (both inclusive) except [sections 57](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47411152/) and [58](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17379318/) of Chapter
     shall be applicable to commerce institutions of
     providing for planned development of educational
     institutions in the State of Karnataka. [This Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105740875/) brought within its purview all educational institutions
     and tutorials and the institutions except for those
     specified under [Section 1(3)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179519636/). The institutions covered
     under [Section 1(3)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179519636/) for whom the Act is made
     applicable are institutions which are financed by the
     Central Government and declared by the Parliament

                                          NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

     by law to be the institutions of national importance;
     the institutions which are deemed to be Universities
     as declared by the Central Government; the
     institutions    established     or    maintained      and
     administered by or affiliated to or recognized by the
     University of Agricultural Sciences; the educational
     institutions affiliated to or recognized by the Council
     of Indian School Certificate Examination (ICSE) or
     Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)
     respectively; and in relation to colleges which are
     coming within the
     (4) It shall come into force on such 1[date]1 as the
     State Government may, by notification, appoint and
     different dates may be appointed for different
     provisions of the Act.[Act came into force on 1-6-
     1995 by notification.] purview of certain Acts
     mentioned in [Section 1(3)(iv)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29598541/) of the Act. 15. [Section
     1(3)(v)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50729605/) of the Act also stipulates that such other class
     or classes of institutions which may by notification be
     specified by the State Government to which this Act
     would be inapplicable. 16. Admittedly, there is no
     notification issued by the State Government
     specifying the industrial training institutes to be
     brought outside the purview of the Act. 17. [Section
     2(14)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145669480/) [2](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121506717/) defines educational institution and it states
     that it would include any institution imparting
     education referred to in [Section 3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77704392/) and would include a
     private educational institution. 22. Definitions.- In this
     Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (14)
     "educational institution" means any institution
     imparting education referred to in [section 3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77704392/) and
     includes a private educational institution but does not
     include an institution under the direct management of
     the University or of the Central Government or a
     tutorial institution; 18. [Section 33](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172512904/) of the Act states
     that the State Government may, subject to [Section
     1(3)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179519636/) of the Act regulate the general education,
     professional education, medical education, technical
     education and towards that end, it could establish and
     maintain educational institutions and also recognize

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

     such educational institutions. 19. The technical
     education has been defined under [section 2(37)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176502694/) [4](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189822266/) of
     the Act to mean any course of study in engineering,
     technology, architecture, ceramics, the

1. Regulation of education.- (1) The State Government may, subject to sub-section (3) of section 1, regulate general education, professional education, medical education, technical education, commerce education and special education at all levels in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 2) The State Government may towards that end,- (a) establish and maintain educational institutions; (b) permit any local authority or a private body of persons to establish educational institutions and maintain them according to such specifications as may be prescribed; (c) require registration of educational institutions including tutorial institutions;

(d) recognise educational institutions; (e) grant aid to
any recognised educational institutions in furtherance
of the objects of this Act; x x x (k) take from time to
time such other steps as they may consider necessary
or expedient. 4 (37) "technical education" means any
course of study in Engineering, Technology,
Architecture, Ceramics, Industrial Training, Mining, or
in any other subject, as the State Government may,
by notification, specify; intellectual, industrial
training, etc. Therefore, any institution imparting
industrial training which is recognized by the State
Government would come within the purview of the Karnataka Education Act. 20. It is not in dispute that
respondent No.5--Institute is a recognized
educational institution which is imparting industrial
training and would therefore come within the purview
of the Education Act. 21. Chapter IX of the Act deals
with Grant-In-Aid and Section 495 of the Act states
that the State Government should within the limits of
its economic capacity, set apart a sum annually for
being given as grant-in-aid to local authority
institutions and to private institutions in the State
recognized for that purpose. Therefore, there is an

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

     obligation in the State to set apart a sum of money
     subject to its financial 5 49. Government to set apart
     sum for giving grant-in-aid to certain recognised
     institution.-

(1) The State Government shall within the limits of its
economic capacity, set apart a sum of money
annually for being given as grant-in-aid (hereinafter
in this Act referred to as grant) to local authority
institutions and private institutions in the State
recognised for this purpose in accordance with rules
made in this behalf. limitations to provide for grants
to not only local authority institutions but also to
private institutions. 22. Section 506 of the Act
stipulates the authorities which could sanction such a
grant; and Section 52 deals with the manner in which
an application for sanction of grant is to be made and
the conditions which could be imposed for giving the
said grant. 23. Section 53 of the Act empowers the
State Government to withhold or reduce the grant
that is payable to an institution. It states that the
Government could withhold, reduce or withdraw any
grant during the year having regard to the funds at its
disposal or the

1. Authorities which may sanction grant.- (1) The State Government may in such cases as they think fit, by order, sanction grant to any recognised local authority educational institution or private educational institution subject to such conditions as they may impose in the order relating to such grant. (2) Every grant sanctioned under sub-section (1) shall be disbursed by the Commissioner of Public Instruction or the Director or such other officer subordinate to the Commissioner or the Director as the State Government may, by general or special order, authorise in this behalf in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (3) The Governing Council of every recognised institution which is receiving any grant out of State funds shall be responsible for the fulfilment of all the conditions subject to which such grant has been given., conduct

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

     and efficiency and the financial condition of the
     institution. However, this would have to be done after
     an inquiry and after giving an opportunity to the
     Governing Council for making the presentation
     against such withholding, reduction or withdrawal.

1. Section 53(2) of the Act provides for the manner
   in which the said power could be exercised and the
   conditions under which it could be exercised.

2. Admittedly, in this case the Government has not
   conducted any enquiry and passed any order
   proposing to withdraw or reduce the grant. It is not
   the case of the Government also that any of the
   conditions narrated in Section 53(2) of the Act is
   attracted to enable it to withhold the grant.

3. In other words, the obligation of the State to pay
   the grant to the institution continues and there is no
   statutory power exercised by the State Government
   to withhold this grant has also been exercised.

4. As already narrated above, it is the case of both
   the State and the Institution that the salary to the
   petitioner was stopped fundamentally because there
   were no admissions to the course to which the
   petitioner was appointed as a JTO i.e., in the DMM
   Trade.

5. If an employee who has been appointed to a
   particular course is rendered without any work
   because that educational institution is unable to
   attract admissions, the obligation of the State
   Government to continue to pay the salary would not
   cease. The State Government, while admitting a post
   to a salary grant, does so consciously and is aware of
   its obligation to pay the salary to the employee whose
   post is admitted to a salary grant.

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

1. The question of retrenchment is provided for under Section 98 of the Act. Section 98 reads as follows:

"98. Retrenchment of employees.- (1) Where
retrenchment of any employee is rendered necessary
by the Governing Council or competent authority
consequent on any change relating to education or
course of instruction or due to any other reason, such
retrenchment may be effected with the prior approval
of the competent authority or the next higher
authority, as the case may be. (2) Where any
retrenchment of the member of the teaching staff in
any aided Educational Institutions is effected, the
State Government or the competent authority shall,
subject to prescribed rules or orders governing the
reservation in posts to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes,
appoint such person to a similar post where available
in any other aided educational institution. (3) If the
management of an institution wants a transfer of an
employee to some other institution, where there is a
vacancy or if any employee of an institution, wants a
transfer or if two employees apply for mutual
transfer, the State Government may grant the
request of the institution or of the employee as the
case may be."
30. As could be seen from the above provision, Section 98(1) of the Act enables the Governing
Council or the competent authority to retrench an
employee provided prior approval of the competent
authority is obtained.

1. It is very important to notice here that the retrenchment should have become necessary because of any change relating to education or course of instruction or due to other reasons.

In other words, in normal circumstances, if an
educational institution including a private educational
institution intends to retrench an employee can only
be under the reasons mentioned in Section 98 and
even in such an event, prior approval of the

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

     Government or the competent Authority i.e., the
     Department would be necessary.

1. Subsection (2) of Section 98 specifically deals
   with a situation relating to retrenchment of the
   member of the teaching staff in any aided Educational
   Institutions.

2. As compared to Subsection (1) of Section 98,
   Subsection (2) makes it clear that in respect of
   retrenchment of any member of the teaching staff in
   any aided institution is to be effected, the State
   Government is required to appoint such person to a
   similar post where available in any other aided
   educational institution. This is, of course, subject to
   the prescribed Rules governing the reservation of post
   to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other
   academic classes.

3. Subsection (2) of Section 98, therefore, makes it
   categorically clear that in respect of the teaching staff
   of an aided educational institution, if an employee is
   to be retrenched, he would have to necessarily be
   appointed to a similar post where available in any
   other aided institution.

4. The reasoning or the logic behind this objective is
   rather clear. If an employee is appointed to a post
   which is admitted to a salary grant, that employee
   has the statutory assurance that his salary will be
   paid throughout his tenure as compared to an
   employee who is appointed to a private institution
   without having any aid. Institution. This is also
   because the obligation of the State to pay the salary
   would continue even if there is no work to a teaching
   staff in any other institution.

5. In case of an employee appointed to a private
   education institution without an aid, it is fundamentally
   a contract of service, and the terms of service will be

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

     governed by such contract. However, by virtue of sub-
     section (2) of [Section 98](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86930972/), the statute creates a right in
     an employee of an aided institution to be given an
     appointment in any other aided institution. The statute
     has taken note of the fact that the Government aids
     several      institutions and    therefore,     whenever
     retrenchment becomes necessary in one institution, that
     retrenched employee is required to be accommodated in
     another aided institution. This is also because the
     obligation of the State to pay the salary would continue
     even if there is no work to a teaching staff in any other
     institution.

1. In order to avoid paying a teaching staff even
   without extracting any work, the provision provides
   for appointing that very person to any other
   institution. This is obviously to ensure that the public
   money is not put to waste and salaries are not paid
   by teaching staff even though they are not teaching.

2. Subsection (2) of Section 98 would clearly
   indicate that there is an obligation on the State to pay
   the teacher of an aided institution his salary
   throughout his/her career.

3. The Government cannot refuse to pay salary
   merely because the institution that it had aided is
   either being closed or the course that was being
   offered by the institution is no longer viable.

4. The statute by creating a statutory obligation on
   the State to provide a teaching staff of an aided
   institution, an appointment in any other aided
   institution, basically guarantees an employee of an
   aided institution safety of tenure and a guarantee in
   terms of his service.

5. An argument is also sought to be advanced by the
   Additional Advocate General ('AAG') that as per
   Clause 7(6) of the Code, which reads as follows, the

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

     grant-in-aid cannot be granted if the enrolment is less
     than 50% of the permitted intake:

"Chapter-VII 7. COURSES, ADMISSIONS AND
RESERVATIONS IN INSTITUTIONS:

1. x x x

2. In all cases where the enrollment is less than 50%
   of the permitted intake, prior approval of the Director
   shall be necessary to commence the concerned trade
   or unit."

3. In my view, this argument cannot be accepted.
   Clause 7 of the Grant-In-Aid Code deals with the
   situation where grant-in-aid is yet to be granted. In
   other words, in respect of a running institution, in
   order to secure grant, Clause 7(6) would come into
   operation and approval can be granted only if the
   permitted intake is more than 50%. If, however, an
   approval has already been granted, the question of
   invoking Clause 7(6) will not arise.

1. To put it differently, at the time of granting aid,
   i.e., in 1997, the Institute did have more than 50%
   intake and that was the reason why the State
   Government had accorded grant-in-aid. A clause for
   prior approval for granting aid cannot be used to
   withdraw an aid already granted.

2. Chapter IX of the Grant-In-Aid Code provides for
   withdrawal, reduction or cancellation of the grant and
   the same reads as follows: "Chapter - XI 11.
   Withdrawal, Reduction or Cancellation of Grant :

1) In case of gross mismanagement, deteriorations
of standards of efficiency and discipliner or breach of
instructions or orders issued by the Directorate or
infringement of provisions of conditions, rules and
procedures laid down in this code, which in the

• 17 - NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

     opinion of the Director is of a serious nature, the
     grant may be reduced or withdrawn by the Director
     after giving such an institution an opportunity of
     being heard.

2) The Director, after conducting such enquiry as he
deems fit and after giving an opportunity of being
heard in the matter, is satisfied that any institution or
management is charging fees at rates higher than
those prescribed by the Government, the grant-in-aid
shall be cancelled. 3) Any change in management by
way of transfer or otherwise or change in the name of
an institution without the prior permission of the
Director, the grant-in-aid sanctioned shall be deemed
to have been withdrawn from the date of such change
or transfer. 4) Any grant-in-aid institution or a part of
it is shifted without prior permission of the director,
the grant-in-aid shall be deemed to have been
withdrawn from time to time of such shift."

1. As we have seen from the above, there is no
   provision to withhold, reduce or cancel the grant if
   there is a reduction in the intake after the grant has
   been given to the institution. In other words, if an
   institution has been given a salary grant, a
   subsequent reduction in the admissions would not
   entitle the Government to reduce the grant
   proportionately.

2. As already stated above even the substantive
   provision regarding withdrawal or reduction of the
   grant does not enable the State Government to
   reduce the grant merely because there is a reduction
   in the admissions.

3. As noticed above, even if the retrenchment
   becomes necessary in an aided institution, the State
   is under an obligation to appoint that teacher of the
   aided institution to another institution.

• 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

1. In that view of the matter, the argument of the
   learned AAG cannot be accepted.

2. It is therefore clear that merely because there is
   no admission in respondent No.5--Institute, the State
   cannot escape its liability to pay the salary to the
   petitioner. The petitioner will therefore be entitled for
   being paid salary from the date it was withheld till the
   date the petitioner was terminated i.e., from August
   2010 till 27.06.2017.

3. Since the service of the petitioner has been
   terminated, the relief that the petitioner had confined
   only for the period during which he was in service.

4. The state has filed a Memo dated 04.12.2024,
   wherein it has stated that the petitioner was to be
   paid a total sum of Rs.23,33,998/- from August 2010
   till May 2017. The Memo also indicates that
   Rs.6,11,000/- had been paid by respondent No.5--
   Institute as a consolidated salary during this period.
   Thereby meaning that the petitioner would be entitled
   to a sum of Rs.23,33,998/- minus Rs.6,11,000/- i.e.,
   Rs.17,22,998/-.

5. The petitioner has however filed a Memo stating
   that he is entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.26,78,139/-.

6. In my view, since the State Department has
   admitted that the petitioner was due in a sum of
   Rs.17,22,998/-, the State Government is required to
   pay this amount to the petitioner within a period of
   two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
   order.

7. In respect of the difference, it would be open to
   the petitioner to establish before the Education
   Appellate Tribunal where his appeal regarding his
   termination is pending consideration and make the
   claim for the differential amount.

• 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

1. In the result, the writ petition is accordingly
   allowed.

2. The State Government is directed to pay the
   petitioner a sum of Rs.17,22,998/- being the arrears
   of salary within a period of two months from the date
   of receipt of a copy of this order. 57. Nothing said in
   this order shall however be construed as rendering an
   opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner
   relating to his termination which is said to be pending
   in EAT No.4 of 2017, and the same will be considered
   on its own merits.

3. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all
   pending interlocutory applications, if any shall stand
   disposed of."

4.  Learned     counsel        for     respondent     No.
   

2/University submits that it would verify the amounts

paid/released by respondent No.1/State and forward the

requisite amount after verification to respondent Nos.3

and 4 in accordance with law within a stipulated time

frame as expeditiously as possible.

1. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, the submissions made by both parties and

the memo filed by the petitioner, I deem it just and

• 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain

directions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

a. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

b. Respondent No.1/State is directed to consider and
take appropriate decision/pass appropriate orders to
implement the proposal dated 05.01.26 submitted by
the respondent no. 2 University insofar as it relates
to transferring the petitioner (serial number 4) from
The respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4
institutions to Sri Meda Dakshinamoorthy Samskata
College, Gokarna within a period of 4 weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.

c. Respondent No.2/University shall verify the amounts
released/paid by the respondent No.1/State and also
ascertain the salary payable to the petitioner from
August 2024 onwards and take necessary steps to
forward the said amount and proceed further in
accordance with law within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

d. Immediately upon respondent Nos.3 and 4 receiving
such payment, if any, towards salary payable to the
petitioner from 24.08.2024 onwards, the respondent

• 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:16029

HC-KAR

Nos.3 and 4 shall make payment within a period of
four weeks thereafter.

Sd/-

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE

SSD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45