Chidananda Reddy S. Patil, a retired professor who moved from Karnatak University, Dharwad, to Karnataka State Law University, Hubballi, has won his Old Pension Scheme (OPS) dispute in the Karnataka High Court. The court has ordered the state to count his qualifying service at both universities and release his pension with effect from 1 January 2025, the day after his retirement.
Nearly 28 years of academic service
Patil joined Karnatak University, Dharwad, as a lecturer on 14 March 1996 through regular recruitment. He later became an Associate Professor. In 2013, he applied for the post of Professor at Karnataka State Law University, Hubballi, through his existing employer and with its permission. After selection, he moved to the new university on 16 July 2013. His resignation from Karnatak University was accepted as a technical resignation under Rule 252(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR).
A technical resignation is a formal resignation used to facilitate an employee’s move to another eligible post without automatically treating the move as a complete break in service for applicable service benefits. Patil continued at Karnataka State Law University until his retirement on 31 December 2024, after nearly 28 years of academic service.
Why the state denied OPS pension
The dispute arose because the state did not agree to count Patil’s 1996–2013 service at Karnatak University toward his pension eligibility. Its argument was that the two universities were autonomous institutions with separate service conditions, so his earlier service could not automatically be combined with his later employment to determine his pension entitlement. The state also relied on a condition in his 2013 appointment order that placed him under the New Fixed Contributory Pension Scheme.
Patil challenged the denial before the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition. On 17 March 2026, a single judge ruled in his favor and directed the authorities to release his pension. The state then filed a writ appeal challenging that decision.
What the Division Bench examined
The Division Bench examined the circumstances surrounding his transfer and the service records of both universities. The court considered his technical resignation under Rule 252(b) of KCSR, continuity of service reflected in pay protection and his Last Pay Certificate, the government’s 2015 clarification on pre-April 2006 recruits, and university resolutions of 2014 and 2021 supporting OPS benefits.
The ruling
In its judgment dated 12 October 2026, the Division Bench dismissed the state’s appeal and upheld the single judge’s decision. The court held that the professor’s movement between the two universities through a technical resignation did not, by itself, wipe out his earlier qualifying service. It also rejected the argument that accepting the NPS condition in his new appointment order prevented him from claiming OPS benefits.
The court relied on the principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute. In simple terms, an employment contract or appointment condition cannot override a right granted under applicable statutory service rules. The judgment said, “Pensionary entitlement, where conferred and regulated by statutory provisions, is not a matter of contractual charity or administrative indulgence. It is a right governed by law.”
The bench also observed that the state could not recognize his previous service for certain employment benefits and then disregard it when calculating his pension. It further emphasized the importance of timely pension payments, observing, “Pension is not a bounty or a favor to be dispensed at its convenience, but a lawful entitlement to be honored when it falls due.”
Pension benefits ordered
The court directed the state to grant Patil pension under the Old Pension Scheme, counting his qualifying service in both universities in accordance with applicable rules. It ordered pension with effect from 1 January 2025 and the release of all consequential retirement benefits and pension arrears. The state must also pay 6% annual interest on withheld pensionary dues, calculated from the respective dates they became payable until actual payment.
The bench gave the state eight weeks from 12 October 2026 to comply. It warned that failure to meet the deadline would attract 12% annual interest on outstanding pensionary amounts, along with litigation costs of ₹1 lakh payable to Patil.
The ruling turned on Patil’s service records, the technical nature of his resignation and the treatment of his prior service by the universities and the state. The judgment is fact-specific and should not be treated as a general rule applicable to all employees.