Autonomous Government-Created Bodies and Pension under KCSRs: Karnataka High Court Clarifies Non-Automatic Pension Entitlement

1. Introduction

The Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaramann and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, in State of Karnataka v. C. Doddappaiah & Connected Matters (judgment dated 19 November 2025), has laid down an important clarification on the applicability of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs), particularly the pensionary provisions, to employees of autonomous bodies created by Government Orders.

The batch consisted of:

W.A. No.150/2024, 164/2024, 175/2024, 267/2024 and 1689/2024 – writ appeals by the State and by the Karnataka Media Academy and Karnataka State Temperance Board;
R.P. No.526/2024 – a review petition against an earlier Division Bench judgment (W.A. No.151/2024);
C.C.C. No.88/2024 – a civil contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior writ order directing grant of pension.

The central legal issue cutting across all matters was:

Whether employees of the Karnataka Media Academy and the Karnataka State Temperance Board, both bodies created by Government Orders and following KCSRs for certain service conditions, are entitled, as of right, to pension under the KCSRs as if they were “Government servants”.

In resolving this, the Court examined:

The definition of “Government servant” under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (KCS (CC&A) Rules);
The scope and applicability clauses of the KCSRs, especially Rules 2(1), 222 and 223 dealing with pension-qualifying service;
The distinction between Government servants, grant-in-aid institutions, and autonomous institutions/boards created by executive orders;
The limits of judicial review in compelling the State to extend pensionary benefits.

The decision substantially alters the earlier position taken in some single-judge and a prior Division Bench order, and therefore has far-reaching consequences for employees of similar bodies in Karnataka.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench’s ultimate directions are:

All writ appeals allowed:
W.A. Nos.150/2024, 164/2024, 175/2024, 267/2024 and 1689/2024 are allowed. The orders of the learned Single Judge which had directed payment of pension and arrears to employees of the Karnataka Media Academy and Karnataka State Temperance Board are set aside.
Review petition allowed; earlier Division Bench judgment recalled:
Review Petition No.526/2024 is allowed. The judgment dated 03.07.2024 in W.A. No.151/2024 (which had apparently granted pension) is reviewed and recalled.
No automatic pension under KCSRs:
The Court holds that employees of the Karnataka Media Academy and Karnataka State Temperance Board are not “Government servants” for the purposes of KCSRs, and that there is no rule, bye-law, regulation or executive order making their service pensionable under the KCSRs. Hence, they have no enforceable right to pension as if they were Government servants.
Limited relief – direction to consider:
Instead of directing payment of pension, the Court orders that the State Government shall take up the employees’ request for pension, hear the Karnataka Media Academy and the Temperance Board, and pass an “informed order” within four months from receipt of the judgment.
Contempt proceedings dropped:
In view of the above, C.C.C. No.88/2024 is dropped and the contempt notice is discharged.
Interlocutory applications dismissed:
All pending IAs stand dismissed in all matters.

Conceptually, the judgment establishes that unless there is a specific statutory or executive provision extending pensionary benefits, employees of autonomous bodies—even if wholly created, funded and regulated by the State and even if governed by KCSRs for pay and allowances—cannot claim KCSR pension as a matter of right.

3. Factual and Procedural Background

3.1 The Institutions: Karnataka Media Academy and Karnataka State Temperance Board

Karnataka Press/Media Academy: Initially created by Government Order dated 25.01.1982 as the Karnataka Press Academy, later renamed as the Karnataka Media Academy. The Academy functions under bye-laws framed pursuant to government policy and funding.
Temperance Board: The Karnataka State Temperance Board is also a Government-created body, constituted through the State’s executive power and functioning as a separate institution.

The crucial features, as emphasised by the Court, are:

These bodies are not “Grant-in-Aid Educational Institutions” under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983;
They operate through their own bye-laws/administrative framework, though under the overarching control of the State;
In the case of the Media Academy, the bye-laws explicitly adopt KCSRs for pay, increments, leave, joining time, travelling allowance and dearness allowance – but are silent on pension.

3.2 The Employees’ Claims

The writ petitioners (now respondents in the appeals) were:

Retired employees of the Karnataka Media Academy (e.g., attender, library assistants, first division assistant);
Retired employees of the Karnataka State Temperance Board (e.g., superintendent, attenders);

Their core contentions before the Single Judge were:

They were appointed against posts created and sanctioned by Government Orders (e.g., G.O. dated 23.06.1984);
Their service conditions (at least pay, leave and allowances) were governed by KCSRs, making them in substance Government employees;
In the absence of C&R Rules, the Government’s own orders and the Academy’s bye-laws must control; once KCSRs are adopted, pensionary provisions should follow; and
Other similarly placed boards and statutory bodies had been granted KCSR pension through government orders, and denial to them was discriminatory.

Single Judge orders in:

W.P. No.22535/2019 c/w 41264/2019 – order dated 12.10.2023;
W.P. No.23966/2022 – order dated 09.10.2023;
W.P. No.106/2014 – order dated 10.01.2022;

accepted these positions and directed the State/Boards to extend pensionary benefits under the KCSRs and to pay arrears.

3.3 Appeals, Review and Contempt

The State and the concerned institutions filed multiple writ appeals (W.A. Nos.150/2024, 164/2024, 175/2024, 267/2024, 1689/2024) challenging the Single Judge’s directions.
A Division Bench, by judgment dated 03.07.2024 in W.A. No.151/2024, had previously taken a view favourable to the employees (details are not fully set out in the present judgment but it evidently upheld pension entitlement).
The State then filed Review Petition No.526/2024 to review that earlier Division Bench judgment, contending that it was based on a misreading of precedent and an incorrect application of KCSRs.
Meanwhile, non-implementation of the Single Judge order in W.P. No.23966/2022 led to the filing of C.C.C. No.88/2024 by C. Doddappaiah, alleging wilful disobedience and seeking contempt action against various State officials.

The present common judgment disposes of all these overlapping strands in a consolidated manner.

4. Precedents and Authorities Cited

4.1 State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Shankar M.R. & Anr. (W.A. No.134/2003, decided 07.01.2005)

This earlier Division Bench decision is the most critical precedent discussed. In that case:

The employee was working in a Film Institute which was a grant-in-aid educational institution;
The Court held that, since the post held by the employee was an aided post and the grant-in-aid rules framed under the Karnataka Financial Code (KFC) and other financial manuals provided for pensionary benefits, the employee was entitled to pension;
The Court noted that the rules governing the Institute made the grant-in-aid rules applicable, and it was undisputed that the code provided for pension benefits for aided posts.

The present Division Bench reproduces the key passage:

“If the grant-in-aid rules ... provide for pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent, undeniably, he is entitled to such benefits by force of rule 6 of the Rules framed for film institutes... If the post held by the 1st respondent was an aided post, it is trite, the 1st respondent is entitled to seek pensionary benefits.”

The current Bench clarifies that Shankar M.R.’s case turned entirely on the fact that the institution was a grant-in-aid educational institution and that the grant-in-aid code itself extended pension. This materially distinguishes it from employees of the Karnataka Media Academy and Temperance Board, which are:

not grant-in-aid educational institutions; and
not governed, for pension, by any grant-in-aid rule or express provision adopting KCSRs pension.

4.2 Karnataka Sericulture Research and Development Institute (W.P. No.45513/2011, 02.08.2024)

The State relied on a more recent decision in W.P. No.45513/2011 (decided on 02.08.2024) concerning employees of the Karnataka State Sericulture Research and Development Institute, an autonomous institution.

That decision, as summarised by the Bench, held:

Rules 2-A and 285 of the KCSRs are applicable to a Government servant and not to an employee of an autonomous institution;
Where such employees were subscribing to the provident fund constituted by the institution, they could not subsequently claim pension under the KCSRs.

This precedent supports a narrow reading of KCSR pension provisions and clearly differentiates autonomous bodies from the State Government itself.

4.3 Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Limited (W.P. Nos.8906/2021 c/w 8030/2020, 22.02.2024)

In these writ petitions, a Division Bench, by order dated 22.02.2024, held that:

Employees who had started service as Government servants but opted to be governed by the service conditions of Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation Limited (KSIC) – where a contributory provident fund (CPF) scheme was in place –
would be estopped from claiming KCSR pensionary benefits from the State Government.

This case illustrates two principles relevant here:

Once an employee consciously leaves Government service for an autonomous entity and opts for a different social security scheme, they cannot later revert to claiming Government pension; and
Corporations and autonomous bodies have independent service conditions, even if the State is the owner or sponsor.

4.4 Review Jurisdiction Cases

The employees relied on the following Supreme Court decisions to attack the maintainability of the review petition:

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, 2023 SCC OnLine 1406
Emphasises that the scope of review is narrow; it is not an appeal in disguise and lies only for obvious errors apparent on the face of the record, not to revisit conclusions merely because another view is possible.
Parison Devi & Ors. v. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715
Reiterates that a review cannot be used to rehear the matter on merits; only errors apparent from the record or other limited grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC justify review.

The Bench, while not elaborating at length on these judgments, implicitly holds that the earlier Division Bench order in W.A. No.151/2024 suffered from an “error apparent” — namely, treating employees of these autonomous bodies as if they were similarly situated to employees of grant-in-aid educational institutions, and overlooking the text of KCSRs and the definition of “Government servant”. That sufficed to entertain and allow the review.

4.5 Other Authorities Cited by Employees

Devkinandan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 409
This classic Supreme Court case underscores that where pension is conferred by rule/statute, it is a right and not a matter of grace or bounty. The employees invoked this to argue that once KCSRs were applicable, pension became a vested right. The current judgment does not dispute this principle; rather, it focuses on whether KCSRs ever validly applied to these employees for pension purposes.
State of Karnataka v. Subrahmanya, AIR 2011 KAR 1891
Though cited, the present judgment does not detail this case’s ratio. It was likely relied upon to support the proposition that pensionary provisions and KCSRs can apply to employees outside the traditional civil service under certain conditions. The Bench, however, resolves the case primarily on the text of the KCSRs and the institutional status of the Academy and Temperance Board.

5. Legal Reasoning

5.1 Who is a “Government Servant” Under the KCSRs?

A crucial step in the Court’s reasoning is to determine who qualifies as a “Government servant” for the purposes of KCSR pension rules. The KCSRs do not contain an independent definition of “Government servant”. However:

Rule 2(1) KCSRs states:
“Save as otherwise provided in these rules, this shall apply to all persons appointed to Civil Services and serving in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka.”
To interpret “Government servant” appearing elsewhere in the KCSRs (particularly in pension rules), the Court looks to Rule 2(d) of the KCS (CC&A) Rules, 1957, which provides:
“‘Government Servant’ means a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State of Karnataka or who hold a civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Karnataka and includes any person whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of India, the Government of another State, a local authority, any person or persons whether incorporated or not and also any person in the service of the Central or another State Government or a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Karnataka.”

From this, the Bench reasons:

The KCSRs are designed primarily for persons appointed to the State’s civil services or civil posts;
Employees whose appointing authority is an autonomous body (like the Media Academy or Temperance Board), even if the body is created by the Government, are ordinarily not Government servants unless specifically declared so by law or executive order;
The definition also contemplates “deputation” cases but that presupposes that the base employer is the Government, with temporary placement elsewhere. Here, the employees’ base employer itself is the Academy/Board.

Thus, the Court treats the definition in the KCS (CC&A) Rules as the applicable interpretive aid for the KCSRs and concludes that the respondents are not Government servants.

5.2 Conditions for Pension under KCSRs: Rules 222 and 223

Even if one is a Government servant, service qualifies for pension under KCSRs only under certain conditions. Rules 222 and 223 are central:

Rule 222 provides that service qualifies for pension only if three conditions are met:

The service must be under Government;
The employment must be substantive and permanent;
The service must be paid for by Government.

Rule 223 further clarifies that service does not qualify unless the employee is appointed and his duties and pay are regulated by the Government or under conditions determined by the Governor. It explicitly states that, by way of example, the following are excluded from pension:

Servants of a Municipality or a Local Board;
Servants of grant-in-aid schools and institutions.

Key points in the Court’s analysis:

Rules 222 and 223 speak expressly of service under Government and being paid for by Government. Merely being funded by Government or being created through Government initiative does not make an autonomous body’s employees “Government servants”.
The exclusion examples in Rule 223 indicate that even entities very closely connected with Government functions (municipalities, local boards, grant-in-aid educational institutions) are not automatically covered, unless a special provision is made.
If such functionally integrated entities are dehors pension unless specifically included, employees of autonomous boards and academies are a fortiori outside the KCSR pension umbrella unless there is an express enabling order or rule.

Thus, these rules reinforce the Court’s conclusion: pension under KCSRs is a benefit restricted to employees whose entire service answers to the criteria of “under Government” and “paid by Government”, or who are specifically brought within the pension net by statute, rule, or executive order.

5.3 Effect of Media Academy Bye-laws and Government Sanctioned Posts

The employees argued that:

The Media Academy’s bye-laws adopt the KCSRs for “pay, increment, leave, joining time, travelling and dearness allowance” on the same terms as Government servants;
Posts were created and sanctioned by Government Orders, and appointments were made only after obtaining Government approval; therefore, they should be treated on par with Government servants for all purposes including pension.

The Court accepts the factual premise (that posts were created and appointments approved by the Government) but rejects the legal inference that this converts them into Government servants for pension purposes:

The bye-laws explicitly restrict the adoption of KCSRs to certain aspects (pay, increments, leave, joining time, TA/DA). They are silent on pension.
Incorporation of KCSRs pro tanto (for specified topics) cannot be read as incorporation in toto (for all matters including pension). Pension, being a major financial liability, requires express coverage.
Merely because the Government sanctions the posts and approves appointments does not alter the basic character of the employment relationship: the employees remain employees of the Academy/Board, not of the Government of Karnataka.

Thus, the Court insists on a clear and unambiguous legal basis for pension coverage. Adoption of some KCSR provisions through bye-laws is not enough to import pension rules.

5.4 Role of Other Government Orders Extending Pension to Different Boards

Employees pointed out that several other Boards and Statutory Bodies (for example, the Silk Board) have been granted KCSR pension through specific Government Orders, arguing that:

This shows the Government’s recognition that such employees are similarly placed; and
Denying pension to them violates equality and fairness.

The Court flips this argument on its head:

The very fact that the Government had to issue specific orders to extend KCSR pension to employees of other bodies confirms that, but for such orders, KCSR pension would not have applied to them;
This reinforces the principle that employees of autonomous institutions, boards and corporations are not automatically covered by KCSR pension, and extension of such benefits is a matter of Government policy and discretion;
Whether particular Boards should be brought within the pension net is primarily an executive decision with financial and policy implications; courts under Article 226 cannot dictate such choices, though they can ensure that the decisions are informed and reasoned.

5.5 Judicial Review and Limits of Mandamus in Pension Policy

Having concluded that the employees had no existing right to KCSR pension, the question arose: can the Court nevertheless direct the Government to declare their service pensionable?

The Bench’s answer is emphatic:

Deciding whether to make the employment in a given institution “pensionable” is a matter of policy and executive discretion, entailing financial, administrative and comparative considerations;
Under Article 226, courts can review decisions for illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or violation of constitutional norms, but cannot assume the role of policy-maker and direct the State to create or extend pension schemes;
The Single Judge’s direction to pay pension and arrears effectively imposed a pension policy decision upon the State, which the present Bench holds to be “not proper”.

However, the Court does not leave the employees remediless. It grants a limited but significant relief:

The Government is directed to “take up the request made by the writ petitioners seeking pension”;
To “pass an informed order” after hearing the Media Academy and Temperance Board as well;
And to do the needful within four months.

This respects the separation between adjudication (the Court clarifying what the law currently is) and policy choice (the Government deciding whether to extend pension as a matter of grace or revised policy).

5.6 Review Petition: Error Apparent and Finality

Employees opposed Review Petition No.526/2024 on multiple grounds:

Finality: W.A. No.151/2024 had already been decided, and a contempt petition was pending; hence, the matter had attained finality.
Scope of Review: Relying on Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and Parison Devi, they argued that the review was nothing but a re-argument on merits, with no “error apparent” on the face of the record.

Although the present judgment does not set out a detailed discussion of review law, it:

Condones the delay in filing the review;
Hears the review along with the writ appeals; and
Allows the review, recalling the earlier Division Bench judgment.

The implicit reasoning is:

The earlier Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.151/2024 apparently rested on the premise that employees of these bodies could directly claim pension under KCSRs, heavily relying on Shankar M.R., without properly considering that:
- Shankar M.R. dealt with a grant-in-aid educational institution governed by a specific grant-in-aid code including pensionary provisions; and
- Rules 2(1), 222 and 223 of the KCSRs, read with the definition of “Government servant” in KCS (CC&A) Rules, limit pension to government servants and those expressly brought within the pension net.
This misapplication and oversight of critical legal provisions and the nature of the institutions constitutes an “error apparent” justifying review under Section 114 CPC read with Order XLVII Rule 1.

Once the foundational legal error is corrected, the basis for contempt proceedings falls, leading to the dropping of C.C.C. No.88/2024.

6. Simplifying Key Legal Concepts

6.1 “Government Servant” vs Employee of an Autonomous Body

Government Servant: A person directly employed in the State’s civil services or holding a civil post “in connection with the affairs of the State”, typically drawing salary from the Consolidated Fund and governed by statutory service rules like KCSRs and KCS (CC&A) Rules.
Autonomous Body Employee: An employee of a corporation, board, academy, or society created and/or funded by Government but having a separate legal structure and its own service rules or bye-laws. Legally, their employer is not the State Government but the institution itself.

Even if an autonomous body is 100% government-funded and even if it adopts some government rules, its employees do not automatically become “Government servants” for all purposes, particularly pension.

6.2 Grant-in-Aid Institutions

A “grant-in-aid” institution is an institution (often educational) which:

Is privately managed (e.g., by a trust or society), but
Receives financial assistance from the Government to meet all or part of its expenditure (notably staff salaries); and
Is governed by a grant-in-aid code or rules made under an Act like the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, prescribing conditions for such aid, including sometimes pensionary benefits.

In Shankar M.R., the Film Institute was such a grant-in-aid institution, which is fundamentally different from the Media Academy and Temperance Board, which are autonomous Government-created entities and not grant-in-aid educational institutions.

6.3 Pension under KCSRs

Under KCSRs:

Pension is not an ex gratia payment; it is earned by “qualifying service” subject to the conditions in Rules 222 and 223;
Only those whose service is “under Government”, substantive and permanent, and paid for by Government, qualify, unless a statute/rule/order extends KCSR pension to them;
Pension once granted becomes a right (as per Devkinandan), but the initial grant presupposes legal authority.

6.4 Review Petition under Section 114 CPC and Order XLVII Rule 1

A review petition is not an appeal. It is a limited mechanism whereby:

The same court that delivered a judgment can revisit it if:
- There is an error apparent on the face of the record;
- New evidence has arisen which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence; or
- Other grounds analogous to the above exist.
It does not entitle parties to reargue the whole case simply because they disagree with the outcome.

In this case, the Court considered the misapplication of the law relating to who qualifies as a Government servant and to which institutions KCSR pension applies as an “error apparent” sufficient to justify review.

6.5 Judicial Review under Article 226 vs Policy Choice

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and “for any other purpose”. However:

Courts test the legality, rationality, procedural fairness, and constitutional compatibility of government action;
They do not generally decide what policy the Government should adopt, especially in fiscal and service-matter domains like pension design;
Hence, the Court can direct the Government to consider a claim and pass a reasoned order, but cannot order it to extend pension as if the Court were framing pension policy.

7. Impact and Broader Significance

7.1 Immediate Effect on the Parties

The employees of the Karnataka Media Academy and the Karnataka State Temperance Board, who had earlier obtained Single Judge orders directing grant of pension and arrears, no longer have an immediate, court-enforceable right to pension under KCSRs.
They do, however, have a right to have their representation or request for pension judiciously considered by the State Government, after hearing their institutions, and decided within four months.
Contempt proceedings against Government officials for non-implementation of earlier Single Judge orders stand dropped due to the changed legal position.

7.2 Implications for Employees of Similar Bodies in Karnataka

The judgment has precedential value for employees of:

Other academies (e.g., cultural, literary, language academies);
Boards and commissions formed by Government Orders or under executive resolutions;
State-owned societies, corporations and autonomous institutes where KCSRs are followed for some service conditions.

The key message is:

No automatic KCSR pension: Employees of such bodies cannot assume that KCSR pension applies to them merely because:
- Their institution was created by the Government;
- Their posts were created/sanctioned by Government Orders; or
- Some aspects of their service are governed by KCSRs.
They must identify:
- A specific statutory provision; or
- A clear rule/bye-law; or
- An explicit Government Order
extending KCSR pension to their category of employees.

7.3 On Equality and Future Litigation

Although this judgment denies a direct right to pension, it leaves open:

The possibility of challenging future Government decisions refusing to extend pension, on grounds of arbitrariness or hostile discrimination, particularly if employees of comparable boards have been granted pension.
Any such challenge would likely focus on:
- Whether the Government’s eventual decision, pursuant to this judgment’s direction, is reasoned, intelligible, and based on relevant considerations;
- Whether differential treatment between similarly placed institutions survives scrutiny under Articles 14 and 16.

7.4 Doctrinal Clarifications

This judgment consolidates several doctrinal positions:

Separation between Government and its instrumentalities: Even where the Government creates, funds and regulates an entity, its employees are not ipso facto Government servants.
Limited incorporation of service rules: Adoption of KCSRs by bye-laws for specified purposes (e.g., pay and leave) does not import the entire KCSR scheme, particularly pension, which has distinct financial consequences.
Pension as a controlled statutory right: While pension, once conferred, is a right, the initial conferment depends on express legal or executive authority.
Review as a corrective tool: The Court affirms its power to use review jurisdiction to correct earlier misapplications of law, even where contempt proceedings are pending on the basis of the earlier judgment.

8. Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. C. Doddappaiah & Connected Matters marks an important clarification in service jurisprudence relating to pension rights of employees of autonomous, Government-created bodies.

The core holdings can be summarised as follows:

Employees of the Karnataka Media Academy and Karnataka State Temperance Board are not Government servants within the meaning of the KCSRs, interpreted with the aid of the KCS (CC&A) Rules;
In the absence of any statutory, rule-based, bye-law-based, or executive provision explicitly making their posts pensionable under KCSRs, they cannot claim pension as of right;
Precedents like Shankar M.R. are distinguishable as they involved grant-in-aid educational institutions governed by a grant-in-aid code that itself provided for pension;
The earlier Division Bench judgment (W.A. No.151/2024) granting pension was based on an error apparent on the face of the record and has been rightly reviewed and recalled;
Court’s power under Article 226 does not extend to mandating the Government to create or extend pension schemes; at most, it can require the Government to consider and take an informed policy decision;
Accordingly, while immediate pensionary relief is denied, the State Government is obliged to re-examine the employees’ request for extending pension, in a structured and reasoned manner, within a fixed timeframe.

In the broader legal context, the judgment sharpens the line between Government service and employment in autonomous institutions, emphasises the need for explicit legal authority for pension entitlements, and affirms both the limited scope of judicial review and the corrective function of the review jurisdiction where earlier judicial determinations have misconstrued the governing legal framework.