LU34P

LU-34
26TH NATIONAL LEVEL LAW FEST – LEX ULTIMA 2024
Before
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARUNADU U/A 226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA
IN THE MATTER OF
W.P. No. ___/2024
DR. VASANTH & OTHERS ………………………PETITIONERS

V.
THE STATE OF KARUNADU ……………………RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

26TH NATIONAL LEVEL LAW FEST- LEX ULTIMA2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................9
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... 10
ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................................................... 12
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS .................................................................................... 13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................15
[1] THE KARUNADU PRIVATE AIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

EMPLOYERS (REGULATION OF PAY, PENSION & OTHER BENEFITS)
ACT, 2014 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID? .......................................................... 15
[1.1] THE IMPUGNED ACT HAS NO LEGITIMATE AIM UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA. .............................................................................. 15
[1.2] THE IMPUGNED ACT HAS NO RATIONAL NEXUS BETWEEN ITS LAW
AND AIM. .............................................................................................................. 17
[1.3] THE IMPUGNED ACT IS NOT PROPORTIONATE IN NATURE. ............. 18
[1.4] DOCTRINE OF WAIVER CANNOT BE APPLIED ON THE PRESENT
CASE. ..................................................................................................................... 20
[2] THERE IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA BY NOT CONSIDERING THE PREVIOUS
SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE BEING ADMITTED
TO THE GRANT-IN-AID...................................................................................................22
[2.1] THE IMPUGNED ACT CANNOT INVOKE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. .. 22

[2.2] THE IMPUGNED ACT FAILS TO MAINTAIN REASONABLE
CLASSIFICATION ENTAILED IN ARTICLE 14 ................................................. 24
[2.3] THE IMPUGNED ACT VIOLATES THE RIGHT TO LIVE WITH DIGNITY
AS ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 21. ........................................................................ 27
1
[3] THE DENIAL OF PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS IS A VIOLATION

OF RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA. ............... 29
[3.1] PENSION AS A MEANS OF SOCIAL WELFARE. ...................................... 30

[3.2] PENSION RIGHTS AS UPHELD IN THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA.... 32
[4] THE EXTENDING RETIREMENT BENFITS DO NOT AFFECT THE
FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE STATE. .................................................................... 36
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................41
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.NO. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM
1. & Ampersand
2. AIR All India Reporter
3. Anr. Another
4. Art. Article
5. Co. Company
6. Corpn. Corporation
7. Dr. Doctorate
8. ed. Edition
9. Etc. Et cetra
10. Hon’ble Honourable
11. i.e. Id Est
12. Id. Ibid
13. KAT Kerala Administrative Tribunal
14. Ltd. Limited
15. M.P. Madhya Pradesh
16. No. Number
17. NPS National Pension Scheme
18. Ors. Others
19. Pvt. Private
20. Rly. Railway
3
21. SC Supreme Court
22. SCC Supreme Court Cases
23. S.L.P. Special Leave Petition
24. T.N. Tamil Nadu
25. thr. Through
26. UGC University Grants Commission
27. v. Versus
4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. CONSTITUTION REFERRED
 Constitution of India, 1950
II. LEGISLATION REFERRED

 Karnataka Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of
Pay, Pension and Other Benefits) Act, 2014
 Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982
 The Karnataka Education Act, 1983
III. RULES REFERRED

 Odisha Development Authorities (Retirement Benefit of the Employees)
Rules, 2015
IV. CASES REFERRED
INDIAN CASES REFERRED

1. Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan & Anr.
1959 AIR 149 ..................................................................................................... 21
2. Bhuban Mohan Dash v. State of Odisha and Others 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 6432 16
3. Budhan Choudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1954) 2 SCC 791. ....................... 24
4. Chairman Rly. Board v C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) 6 SCC 623. ...................... 38
5. Chandigarh Admn. v. Rajni Vali, (2000) 2 SCC 42............................................. 38
6. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305......................................... 31, 41
7. Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600. .. 29
8. Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, (2022) 6 SCC 65. ................ 17
9. Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330. ............................ 31, 41
10. Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (3)
Mh.L.J. ......................................................................................................... 37, 40
5
11. Dr (Ms) BK Naik & Ors. v. State of Karnataka AIR 2016 (NOC) 400 (KAR.)
Dharwad Bench ............................................................................................ 37, 38
12. E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3. .................................................. 26
13. G. Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 4851 of 2021 ......... 35
14. H.S. Vankani & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2010 (4) SCC 301. .................... 24
15. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602................... 23
16. Indian Express Newspapers (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2002 SCC OnLine
Bom 783. ............................................................................................................ 18
17. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1 ........ 15
18. K.Nagaraj & Ors. Etc.Etc v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc., AIR 1985 SC
551. .................................................................................................................... 34
19. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors v. State of Kerala and Anr (1973)
4 SCC 225 .......................................................................................................... 19
20. Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139. ........................ 18
21. Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 197. ................................ 23
22. M/s. Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner
of Commercial Taxes & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6525 of 2014. ............................ 23
23. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. ............................ 15, 16, 27
24. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591 .............................. 19, 36
25. Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2009) 7 SCC 751 . 19
26. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545........................ 28, 29
27. Omega Advertising Agency v. State Electricity Board, AIR 1982 Gau. 37. ......... 21
28. Poornamal v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 345 : AIR 1985 SC 1196 ................ 32
29. Purushottam Kashinath Kulkarni & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ
Petition No. 2630 of 2014. .................................................................................. 31
30. Sajjan Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. AIR 1965 SC 845. .................. 23
31. Saurabh Chaudri & Ors v. Union of India & Ors S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1347 of 2002
........................................................................................................................... 24
32. Shri Naini Gopal v. Union of India & Ors., LD-VC-CW-665 OF 2020. .............. 33
33. State of Kerala v. C. Sreenivasan, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 2479. ......................... 26
34. State of Kerala v. V. Padmanaabhan Nair, (1995) 5 SCC 690 ............................. 33
6
35. State of M.P. v. Ranojirao Shinde, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 18 .............................. 35

36. State of Madras v. V.G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196. ................................................ 17
37. State of Punjab & Anr. v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1976 SC 667 (5). ............................. 32
38. State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517. ........................................ 18
39. Subrata Sen v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 71 ................................................. 40
40. T.M.A. Pai Foundation (Dr.) v. State of Karnataka, 1984 SCC OnLine Kar 196. 20
41. Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. thr. Power of Attorney Holder v. M.I.D.C. & Ors.,
Civil Appeal No. 7780 of 2012 ........................................................................... 33
42. U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630.
..................................................................................................................... 34, 39
43. V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 3984 of 2010. ........... 31
44. Yousuf Ali Abdulla Fazalbhoy v. M.S. Kasbekar AIR 1982 Bom. 135 ............... 21
FOREIGN CASES REFERRED

1. City of Ft. Smith v. Bruce 186 Ark. 423.............................................................. 29
2. Dodge v. Board of Education of City of Chicago et al., 1937 SCC OnLine US SC
144. .................................................................................................................... 30
3. In re Riegelmann’s Estate 178 Misc. 475 ............................................................ 29
4. Price v. Society for Savings 64 Conn. 362 .......................................................... 29
5. State ex rel. Hughes v. Cleveland 47 N.M. 230 ................................................... 29
V. BOOKS REFERRED
 Bryan A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary (Thomson Reuters, 10th ed. 2014).
 C.K.Thakker, Commentary on The Constitution of India (Whytes& Co, 3 rded.,
2022)
 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (LexisNexis, 9 thed)
 G.P. Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation (15th ed. 2017).
 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (Law & Justice Publishing Co,
4thed)
 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis, 7th ed., 2018).
VI. LEXICONS REFFERED

 Corpus Juris Secundum (WestLaw, Vol. 70)
7
VII. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND STATUTES

 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
VIII. LEGAL DATABASES REFERRED

 Bar and Bench
 Case Mine
 EBC Reader
 Lexis Nexis
 Live Law
 Manupatra
 SCC Online
8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted that the Petitioners have approached this Hon’ble High Court
under Art 2261of the Constitution of Sindia. The Petitioners most humbly submits before
the jurisdiction of the Court.
1
Article 226- Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases,
any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or
person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within
which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the
seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other
manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim
order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation
of such order and
furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of
such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on
which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is
later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day
afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order
shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on
the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.
9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
EXISTING LEGAL REGULATIONS
 The Government of Karunadu established the department of Collegiate Education

to deal with higher educational institution, which would take care of appointment,
recruitment, conditions of service of Government and Government Aided
Colleges/University teachers.
 The Department of Law & Human Rights would extend legal advice to all
departments of the Government and give powers to deal with regulation governing
aided and Government law colleges in Karunadu.
NEW LEGAL REGULATIONS
 The Government of Karunadu extended orders for Grant-in-Aid to 19 colleges, in

the year 2015 based on the ‘Private Aided Educational Institutions Employers
(Regulation of Pay, Pension & Other Benefits) Act 2014. The following terms and
conditions were designated accordingly:
● No consideration shall be given to the teachers absorbed under the Government
Grant-in-Aid about their prior service, either in terms of time worked or monetary
compensation received. Consequently, regardless of their length of service, all of
the teachers who were accepted for the grant of aid were regarded as freshmen.
● Moreover, the colleges interested in taking Government grants would require both
the management and the teachers to individually give an undertaking in the stamp
paper clearly stating that they would not claim the benefits of previous service
either for the service rendered or for deciding the pay scale.
● The admission to Grant-in-Aid has no provision for pension. The contribution to
NPS is the management’s responsibility, and there is no provision for gratuity.
10
INCIDENT OF DR. VASANTH
 Dr. Vasanth was a lecturer at a law college in Karunadu. He began his career in
the service in 1995, and in 2005, the college administration elevated him to the
rank of Associate Professor of Law. In January 2015, he was again promoted to
Professor of Law. However, by extending the grant-in-aid to the college, he was
relegated to the status of assistant professor as a result of the notifications issued in
2015. As a result, the administration of every institution, including the one where
Dr. Vasanth was employed, refused to pay the employers' share of the provident
fund and limited their liability for gratuities until the relevant employee was
accepted for the grant-in-aid.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
 Over time, the government began to interfere in all aspects of administration,

which disturbed the entire environment of the college. Furthermore, in cases
where an institution cannot sustain and manage itself, the State of Karunadu
permits the government to provide aid.
 The state cited that the legislation of ‘The Karunadu Private Aided Educational
Institutions Employers (Regulation of Pay, Pension and Other Benefits) Act 2014’
prohibits the State from considering the previous services rendered by the
employees in the aided colleges before being admitted to the grant in aid.
 Aggrieved against the decision of the Government, Dr. Vasanth and others
challenge the constitutionality of the Karnunadu Private Aided Educational
Institutions Employers (Regulation of Pay, Pension and Other Benefits) Act, 2014.
11
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE KARUNADU PRIVATE AIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

EMPLOYERS (REGULATION OF PAY, PENSION & OTHER BENEFITS) ACT, 2014
IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
ISSUE II
WHETHER DENIAL OF PREVIOUS SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONERS

BEFORE BEING ADMITTED TO THE GRANT-IN-AID VIOLATES THEIR RIGHT
UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA?
ISSUE III
WHETHER DENIAL OF PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS IS A VIOLATION OF

RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA?
ISSUE IV
WHETHER EXTENDING RETIREMENT BENEFITS AFFECT THE FINANCIAL

STABILITY OF THE STATE?
12
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I
THE KARUNADU PRIVATE AIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
EMPLOYERS (REGULATION OF PAY, PENSION & OTHER BENEFITS) ACT,
2014 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID.
It is submitted that the Karunadu Private Aided Educational Institutional Employers

(Regulation of Pay, Pension, & Other Benefits) Act, 2014, is constitutionally invalid. The
Act fails to serve a legitimate aim as it arbitrarily denies past services, which undermines
the professional contributions and sacrifices made by experienced educators. However,
the implementation of the grant in aid neglects the purpose of parity, neglecting previous
services rendered by employees. Further, the Act fails to strike a fair balance between the
social interest of managing public funds and the individual rights of educators. The law's
disproportionate impact on individual rights renders it constitutionally invalid.
ISSUE II
THERE IS AN INFRIENGEMENT OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE

TO THE GRANT-IN-AID.
It is submitted that the denial of previous services by teachers before being admitted to
grant-in-aid violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of Sindia. The state fails to uphold the principle of “equal work for equal pay” and
discriminates arbitrarily between two classes of employees who are similarly placed and
have put in equal services. Further, the arbitrary denial of past service rendered lowers the
dignity of experienced teachers, affects their financial well-being, hampers professional
development, and disproportionately affects teachers nearing retirement.
13
ISSUE III
THE DENIAL OF PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS IS A VIOLATION OF

RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA.
It is submitted that the withholding of pension and other benefits is a violation of their
rights as stipulated in Article 21 of the Constitution of Sindia. The necessity to advocate
on the need for these benefits are twofold as pension is a means of social welfare and the
pension rights are mentioned in the Constitution of India. The main goal of pension is to
ensure that the retiree or pensioner lives with freedom, decency, independence, and self-
respect and that the quality of life is maintained even after the days of service and regular
pay are over. Along with the provisions of Article 300A which states that pension payable
to retired employees is a ‘property’ facilitated by the Constitution protects the rights of an
individual. Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and in furtherance of the
goals of the Constitution. Every state action whenever taken must be directed and must be
so interpreted as to take society one step towards the goal of establishing a socialist
welfare society.
ISSUE IV
THE EXTENDING RETIREMENT BENFITS DO NOT AFFECT THE

FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE STATE.
It is submitted that the extension of retirement benefits does not affect the financial
stability of the State. Denial of extension of retirement benefits on the grounds that it
imposes a burden on the State Exchequer is invalid as the extension of the benefits of the
pension is considered to be socio-economic welfare. An extension of the benefits of
retirement cannot be denied on the grounds of a lack of resources. The extension of the
benefits of retirement is not a bounty on the State but it is akin to the right to property, and
it is to be treated as a deferred salary. Extending pensionary benefits would also ensure
the imparting of quality education to the students of the institution; therefore, the State
cannot deny the extension of the benefits to the employees.
14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1] THE KARUNADU PRIVATE AIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

EMPLOYERS (REGULATION OF PAY, PENSION & OTHER BENEFITS) ACT,
2014 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID?
1. It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the Karunadu
Private Aided Educational Institutional Employers (Regulation of Pay, Pension,
& Other Benefits) Act, 2014, is constitutionally invalid.
2. It is submitted that in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India &Ors2judgment noted

that any invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the three requirements of
legality, i.e., there must be a law in existence; legitimate aim or state interest; and
proportionality of the legitimate aims with the object sought. There should be a
rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them.
3. This framework primarily applies to laws that restrict fundamental rights. In the
case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India3, it was stated that
“a law depriving a person of personal liberty and prescribing a procedure

for that purpose within the meaning of Article 21 has to stand a test of one
or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Article 19, which may
be applicable in a given situation. Ex-hypothesis, it must also be likely to
be tested with respect to Article 14.”
[1.1] The Impugned Act has no Legitimate Aim under The Constitution of Sindia.
4. It is submitted that the law needs to serve a legitimate aim in which it pursues a
purpose that is recognized as valid and necessary in a democratic society. 4In the
context of The Act, it is argued that the Act fails to serve a legitimate aim, thereby
rendering it constitutionally invalid.
5. The arbitrary nature of the denial of past services undermines the professional
contributions and sacrifices made by experienced educators. By treating all
2
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy& Anr. v. Union of India &Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1.
3
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
4
Id.
15
teachers as freshers irrespective of their years of service, the Act disregards the
essential principles of fairness and justice that should govern Government
policies. 5 The lack of a legitimate rationale for this denial points to the Act's
failure to meet the first prong of the test of validity.
6. The primary aim of any employment-related legislation should be to ensure the

financial security and well-being of employees. However, the Karunadu Act, by
excluding past service for pay, pension, and other benefits, effectively
discriminates against long-serving teachers6. This leads to financial insecurity for
those who have dedicated substantial parts of their careers to their institutions.
The absence of a compelling reason for this exclusion indicates that the Act does
not pursue a valid and necessary purpose in a democratic society, thereby failing
to satisfy the requirement of serving a legitimate aim.
7. It is submitted that the Act's provisions have adverse implications for the overall
quality of education. Experienced educators bring invaluable knowledge, skills,
and mentorship to their institutions and their devaluation under this Act is
counterproductive to the goal of fostering high-quality legal education. The
failure to recognize and reward long-term service does not align with any
legitimate aim related to the improvement of educational outcomes or institutional
stability.
8. The Act does not satisfy the test of serving a legitimate purpose. The Act's
provisions appear to be arbitrary and discriminatory, lacking a valid purpose that
justifies their existence.
9. In the case of Bhuban Mohan Dash v. State of Odisha7, it was held that the
provisions contained under Rule 4 (1) of the Odisha Development Authorities
(Retirement Benefit of the Employees) Rules, 20158 whereby a class of persons
who joined after 01.01.2005 have been deprived of getting the benefit of pension
5
6
Moot Prop.¶ 2.
7
Bhuban Mohan Dash v. State of Odisha and Others 2023 SCC OnLine Ori 6432.
8
Odisha Development Authorities (Retirement Benefit of the Employees) Rules, 2015§ 4(1), No.14, Acts of
Odisha State Legislature, 2015 (India).
16
and provident fund, is ulta vires to the provisions of the Odisha Development
Authorities Act, 19829 as well as Articles 1410 and 1611 of the Constitution of
India.
[1.2] The Impugned Act has no Rational Nexus between its Law and Aim.
10. It is submitted that there should be a rational connection between the law and the
aim, in which the law's chosen means logically relate to the intended objective.
The measures taken by the law should be reasonable and appropriate for
achieving the legitimate aim. Arbitrary or excessive measures would fail this test.
In the case of State of Madras v. V.G. Row12, the Supreme Court emphasized that
any restriction must have a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. It is submitted that the rational nexus between the law and its aim is not
achieved because the implementation overlooks a crucial component i.e., previous
service. The legitimate aim of ensuring pay parity is compromised by the
exclusion of past service recognition. Without considering the employees'
previous contributions, the law fails to fulfill its intended purpose effectively. The
government’s Act is blind to the fact that previous service is integral to achieving
true pay parity. By ignoring past service, the law creates an imbalance that
contradicts its own objective.
11. The Apex Court, in Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti13, held
that subordinate legislation can always be tested on the grounds of
unreasonability, arbitrariness, or proportionality, but the same must be
“manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.” Based on the judgments of the State of
T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy14, Indian Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Union of India,
and Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Court determined that
9
Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982, No. 14, Acts of Odisha State Legislature, 1982 (India).
10
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
11
12
State of Madras v. V.G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196.
13
Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, (2022) 6 SCC 65.
14
State of T.N. v. P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517.; Indian Express Newspapers (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Union of India, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 783.; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC
223.
17
mere perception of unreasonability or arbitrariness is insufficient and that

something more must be presented based on challenge as not meeting the
essential and basic parameters of reasonableness. If the rulemaking authority can
demonstrate a differential treatment for differential classes with sound and
plausible justification for the same, then the rule shall not be manifestly arbitrary.
12. In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India15Hon’ble Supreme Court, held

that
“A piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of
immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature.
Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which
plenary legislation is questioned. In addition, it may also be questioned on
the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It
may further be questioned on the ground that it is contrary to some other
statute. That is because subordinate legislation must yield to plenary
legislation. It may also be questioned on the ground that it is
unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable, but
in the sense that it is manifestly arbitrary.”
13. It is submitted that the Karunadu Act fails to acknowledge the previous services
rendered by the employees before the introduction of the aid. While the aim is to
ensure parity, true parity can only be achieved by recognizing the past
contributions of all employees. Parity does not mean treating everyone equally
regardless of their experience; rather, it means ensuring fair compensation that
reflects their service and contribution16. Employees with long service records are
treated the same as fresh entrants, disregarding their years of contribution and
experience.
[1.3] The Impugned Act Is Not Proportionate In Nature.
14. It is submitted that the law must be proportionate, which means that it should be
the least restrictive means of achieving the goal while also balancing rights and
public interests. This indicates that if less restrictive alternatives exist to achieve
the same result, they should be used. The benefits of the law must be balanced
15
Indian Express Newspapers (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 783.
16
Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139.
18
against the harm caused by restrictions on basic rights. The law should strike a
fair balance between social interests and individual rights. The concept of
proportionality has been elaborated in cases like Modern Dental College v. State
of Madhya Pradesh17 where the court held that any restriction on a fundamental
right must be proportionate to the public interest sought to be achieved.
15. The principle of proportionality mandates that any law or governmental action
should be designed in such a way that it minimally restricts the fundamental
rights of individuals while achieving its intended objective. In the present case,
the denial of recognition for past service is not the least restrictive means to
address any purported financial concerns of the state.
16. In the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India18, the concept of judicial
review of legislative action on the grounds of proportionality was discussed. The
Court held that any law violating the basic structure of the Constitution 19could be
struck down.
17. The proportionality test requires a careful balance between the rights of
individuals and the interests of society. Here, the harm caused to teachers by
denying them recognition for their past service outweighs any marginal financial
benefits to the state. By undermining these rights, the Act fails to strike a fair
balance between the social interest of managing public funds and the individual
rights of educators who have dedicated their careers to public service. The
disproportionate impact on teachers' rights demonstrates a lack of balance and
fairness in the legislative approach. In T. M. A. Pai Foundation v. State of
Karnataka20, the case dealt with the rights of private educational institutions and
applied the proportionality test to examine the reasonableness of restrictions
imposed by the state.
17
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2009) 7 SCC 751.
18
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591.
19
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors v. State of Kerala and Anr (1973) 4 SCC 225.
20
T.M.A. Pai Foundation (Dr.) v. State of Karnataka, 1984 SCC OnLine Kar 196.
19
18. The Act, by imposing severe restrictions on teachers' rights without proportionate
public benefits, fails to meet the standards set by the aforementioned landmark
judgments.
19. Lastly, it is submitted that the Act does not adhere to the principle of
proportionality as it imposes unnecessary and excessive restrictions on the
fundamental rights of teachers without exploring less restrictive alternatives. The
law's disproportionate impact on individual rights, without a corresponding
substantial public interest, renders it constitutionally invalid.
[1.4] Doctrine of Waiver cannot be applied on the present case.
20. It is submitted that doctrine of waiver doesn’t apply to the present case. Doctrine
of waiver, as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary21, is the intentional or voluntary
relinquishment of a known right. Waiver proceeds on the basis that a man not
under legal disability is the best judge of his own interest and if, with knowledge
of a right or privilege conferred on him by statute, contract or otherwise, for his
benefit, he intentionally gives up the right or privilege, or chooses not to exercise
the right or privilege to its full extent, he has a right to do so.
21. In order to establish waiver, it is necessary to establish the nature of the waiver.
The waiver proceeds on the basis that the person not under legal disability is the
best judge of his own interest and if, the person had full knowledge of the right or
privilege, and that the right or privilege was conferred principally for his benefit
and not principally for the benefit of the public 22. In the present case, the teachers
and management of Law College gave an undertaking clearly stating that they
would not claim the benefit of previous service either for the service rendered or
for deciding pay scale, so that the College can receive grant from the State23.
21
Doctrine of Waiver, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).
22
D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India vol. 2 (9th ed. 2014).
23
Moot Prop.¶ 2.
20
22. According to the Bombay High Court, in Yousuf Ali Abdulla Fazalbhoy v. M.S.
Kasbekar24,
“The state cannot arrogate to itself a right to commit breach of the Fundamental
Rights of any person by resorting to principles of waiver or estoppel or other
similar principles.”
Similarly, the Gauhati High Court25 has explained that the Fundamental Rights have been
embodied in the Constitution not merely for the benefit of a particular individual but also
as a matter of constitutional policy and for public good, and, therefore, the doctrine of
waiver or acquiescence cannot be applied thereto.
“A citizen cannot voluntarily get discrimination or waive his Fundamental Right

against discrimination”
as the right of not being discriminated against is enshrined in Art. 14 and is a
Fundamental Right.
23. In Basheshar Nath v. Income Tax Commissioner26, it was held that no citizen
can waive or give up the fundamental rights mentioned under Article 14 27. The
Court further held that it was not just Article 14 27, but this extended to all the
fundamental rights granted by the Constitution, and none of them could be
waived by an individual. Similarly, the undertaking signed by the Petitioners
amounts to violation of their fundamental rights because in the due process, they
are made to waive their right to equal pay and be discriminated on the basis of
arbitrary classification and further giving up on their right to livelihood28.
24
Yousuf Ali Abdulla Fazalbhoy v. M.S. KasbekarAIR 1982 Bom. 135.
25
Omega Advertising Agency v. State Electricity Board, AIR 1982 Gau. 37.
26
Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner ofIncome-Tax, Delhi &Rajasthan &Anr.1959 AIR 149.
27
INDIA CONST. art 14.
28
Moot Prop.¶ 2.
21
[2] THERE IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE

TO THE GRANT-IN-AID.
24. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the denial of previous
services rendered by petitioners before being admitted to the grant-in-aid violates
their fundamental rights vested under Articles 1410 and 2129 of the Constitution of
Sindia.
25. The petitioners had been appointed as professors, teachers, etc., by the
management of the aided institutions in which they were presently working, and
their appointment was approved subsequently on various dates (in respect of
different petitioners) by admitting them to grant-in-aid, and the non-grant period
was not considered 30.
26. Hence, petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Court to request that the state
include the non-grant period in the calculation of seniority and other service
benefits, as the State had committed to excluding it31. The state is obligated to
provide service benefits to employees employed in institutions that have been
admitted to grant-in-aid, even though the same benefits are extended to
employees employed in government colleges and institutions. This would
constitute discrimination, as both groups are fulfilling the same responsibilities.
[2.1] The Impugned Act cannot invoke Retrospective Effect.
27. It is submitted that since Section 87 of the Karnataka Education Act 32 established
the same standards for both employees—specifically, those working in
educational institutions receiving state grants—the amending Act cannot reduce
29
30
Moot Prop.¶ 2.
31
Moot Prop.¶ 3.
32
Karnataka Education Act, 1983, § 87, No. 1, Acts of Karnataka State Legislature, 1983 (India).
22
those standards, especially retrospectively, as doing so would violate Article 1433

of the constitution.
28. It is submitted that when petitioners and other employees in similar situations
have received approval from the State for all service benefits, it is not permissible
for the State to revoke these benefits through retrospective legislation. Any effort
by the State to undermine the impact of a judicial decision constitutes an
infringement on the power of the judiciary.
29. Retrospective laws that negate vested rights and judicial decisions are generally
considered unconstitutional. The Act in question attempts to nullify the effect of
court judgments, which is a misuse of legislative power. The same was held in
Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India34, where the Supreme Court held that
retrospective laws cannot take away vested rights.
30. The principle of non-retrospective effect states that the laws should typically be
applied in a forward-looking manner rather than being applied retroactively. Laws
that apply retroactively can cause significant disruptions to established
expectations and introduce a sense of uncertainty within the legal system. In
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra 35, the Supreme Court
emphasized that laws affecting substantive rights should not be retrospective
unless explicitly stated
31. It is submitted that the judicial decisions carry significant weight and establish a
precedent that must be followed under the doctrine of stare decisis 36. Once the
courts have made a ruling regarding the entitlement of petitioners to equal pay
from the date of initial appointment, this precedent must be maintained unless it is
challenged and overturned by a higher court. The Supreme Court's ruling in H.S.
33
34
Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 197.
35
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602.
36
Sajjan Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. AIR 1965 SC 845.; M/s. Total Environment Building
Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6525 of
2014.
23
Vankani & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.37emphasized the importance of

considering previous services when determining pension and other benefits. This
decision further solidifies the binding nature of judicial rulings on these matters.
[2.2] The Impugned Act Fails To Maintain Reasonable Classification Entailed In

Article 14
32. It is submitted that Article1438 of the Constitution of Sindia guarantees equality

before the law and equal protection of the laws. This principle mandates that all
persons in similar circumstances should be treated alike, both in the privileges
conferred and liabilities imposed by the law. Therefore a reasonable classification
is not only permitted but also necessary.
33. Article 1439 forbids class legislation but not reasonable classification 39. The
article applies on a reasonable basis; equals are treated differently. Such
classification should not be artificial, arbitrary, or evasive, and it must rest on
substantial distinction that is real. It must bear a reasonable and just relation to the
sought object, which is to be achieved by the legislation.
34. The principle of reasonable classification as laid by the Supreme Court has two
conditions, which are: (i) The classification must be founded on intelligible
differentia, distinguishing grouped persons or goods from the left-out ones of the
group. (ii) The differential must be in a rational relation with the sought object
that is to be achieved by the act. The object of the act and the differential based on
classification are two separate things. There must be a nexus between the object
of the act and the basis of classification. When a reasonable basis is not present
for classification, then such classifications made by the legislature must be
declared discriminatory. 40
37
H.S. Vankani&Ors. v. State of Gujarat &Ors. 2010 (4) SCC 301.
38
39
Budhan Choudhary and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1954) 2 SCC 791.
40
Saurabh Chaudri & Ors v. Union of India &Ors S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1347 of 2002.
24
35. It is submitted that the principle of equal pay for equal work would apply in all
forces to the petitioners, and as such, there cannot be any discrimination between
them and the employees working in government institutions, and that the state has
to maintain parity of pay between teaching and non-teaching staff of aided and
unaided schools, and government schools, and that the benefits granted to the
appellants for counting their past services for pay fixation.
36. In the instant case, the petitioners and similarly placed persons are concerned
about pay parity, grant of increment on par with teachers working in Government
institutions, payment of pensions, and grant of other service benefits, which are
based on Article 1439 of the Constitution. Thus, it is a fundamental right that has
accrued to the petitioners as a matter of interpretation of Section 87 of the
Karnataka Education Act, 198341, made there under by applying the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' financial benefits have been extended to the petitioners
and similarly placed persons, which again is based on the principles laid down in
Article 1439 and Article 39(d)42of the Constitution.
37. The impugned enactment by the legislature in the exercise of its plenary power
would take away the judicial pronouncement which has been based on Article
1439 of the Constitution and as such, the impugned enactment will have to be
necessarily held as opposed to the article of the Constitution.
38. Denial of the recognition of previous service for teachers admitted to the grant-in-
aid scheme can be seen as discriminatory if it arbitrarily differentiates between
employees within the same institution based solely on the timing of their
absorption into the grant-in-aid scheme. The denial of recognition for previous
service rendered by the petitioners before being admitted to the grant-in-aid is
arbitrary and discriminatory. The doctrine of arbitrariness, as established in E.P.
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu43, states that
41
42
INDIA CONST. art. 39(d).
43
E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3.
25
“Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it

cannot be "cribbed cabined and confined" within traditional and
doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic
to arbitrariness.”
Any action that is arbitrary and unreasonable violates Article 14 39. Treating
teachers with substantial previous service as freshers without any valid
justification constitutes arbitrariness.
39. It is submitted that the State of Kerala v. C. Sreenivasan 44 established that

Assistant Professors of Mathematics in government institutions, appointed by the
Kerala Public Service Commission, can be eligible for career progression under
the UGC Scheme. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) ruled in favor of
the Assistant Professors, stating that the government and State Universities have
no administrative financial control over unaided self-financing institutions. The
court found no nexus between government colleges and self-financing private
colleges, as the UGC scheme does not make such a distinction. The court deemed
the classification unreasonable and violative of Article 1439 of the Constitution of
India and affirmed the KAT's judgment. The court argued that the state's financial
prudence objective does not justify disregarding previous service, especially when
it contributes to the quality and stability of educational institutions.
40. In the impugned Act, a reasonable classification between two classes of

employees is not brought about but it discriminates between two classes of
employees who are similarly placed and who have put in equal service, and it
further discriminates between the same class of teachers, i.e., between the
teachers of aided institutions and teachers of government colleges. It would
indicate that it disentitles the petitioners to the benefits of fixation of pay scale,
annual increments, time-bound allowances, pensionary benefits, and other
consequential benefits from the date of their entry into service, but they would be
entitled to such benefits from the date of approval of their appointment with aid.
41. The principle of equality is violated when the law differentiates between
individuals without a reasonable basis. Here, the petitioners who have rendered
44
State of Kerala v. C. Sreenivasan, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 2479.
26
significant service before the grant-in-aid are treated as freshers, which disregard
their previous contributions and experience. 45
[2.3] The Impugned Act Violates The Right To Live With Dignity As Enshrined In
Article 21.
42. It is submitted that Article 2146 of the Constitution of Sindia guarantees the right
to life and personal liberty, which has been expansively interpreted by the
judiciary to include the right to livelihood. The Supreme Court in Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India47 has held that the right to life includes the right to live
with human dignity. Arbitrary denial of past service recognition effectively
lowers the dignity of teachers who have dedicated years to their profession.
Treating experienced teachers as freshers without recognizing their prior
contributions undermines their dignity and professional worth, violating their
right to live with dignity.
43. By treating experienced teachers as freshers and not recognizing their prior
service, the Act hampers their professional development and career progression.
Teachers who have spent years honing their skills and gaining expertise are
denied the opportunity to advance in their careers based on their experience. This
not only stifles their professional growth but also discourages younger educators
from committing to long-term careers in teaching, knowing that their service may
not be fully recognized or valued in the future.
44. The act disproportionately affects teachers who are nearing retirement or have
limited career mobility due to various personal or socio-economic reasons. These
teachers rely heavily on the benefits they have accrued from their past service to
secure their financial future and ensure a dignified retirement. Denying them
recognition for their previous contributions exacerbates their vulnerability and
financial insecurity, particularly in their later years. Such discriminatory practices
45
Moot Prop.¶ 2.
46
47
27
violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination that underpin Article

2128, further highlighting the need for judicial intervention to protect the rights of
these educators.
45. Article2146 encompasses the right to livelihood as part of the right to life, as held
in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation48. Hence, the denial of
recognition for previous service adversely affects the financial security and
livelihood of the teachers. It undermines their right to a dignified life by depriving
them of the benefits accrued from their past services, such as provident fund
contributions, pensions, and gratuities.
46. The lack of recognition for previous service means that the provident fund
contributions made during those years are disregarded. Teachers who have
diligently contributed to their provident funds over the years are deprived of the
compounded benefits and financial security that come with these contributions.
This not only affects their savings but also undermines their ability to plan for
unforeseen expenses and emergencies, thus infringing upon their right to a secure
livelihood.
47. It is, therefore, the petitioner’s contention that denial of past services rendered
before being admitted to the grant-in-aid is in clear violation of Part III of the
Constitution of Sindia.
48
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545.
28
[3] THE DENIAL OF PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS IS A VIOLATION OF

RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINDIA.
48. The counsel for the petitioners humbly submits that denial of pensions is a
violation of rights under Article 2149 of the Constitution of Sindia. The concept of
pension has been defined in Corpus Juris Secundum50as,
“A pension is a periodical allowance of money granted by the government
in consideration or recognition of meritorious past services51, or of loss or
injury sustained in the public service52. A pension is mainly designed to
assist the pensioner in providing for his daily wants53, and it presupposes
the continued life of the recipient54.”
49. It is submittedthat Article 2149 of Indian Constitution guarantees right to life. The
scope of right to life is wide and far reaching. An important facet of that right is
right to livelihood, because no person can live without the means of living, i.e.,
the means of livelihood. This was upheld in the case of Delhi Transport
Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress55.Therefore, depriving employees like
Dr. Vasanth and others of benefits like pensions, PFs and other benefits is an
infringement under Article 2128.
50. In Olga Tellis &Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation &Ors.56 that the Apex
Court held that,
“if there is an obligation upon the state to secure to the citizens an

adequate means of livelihood and right to work, it would be sheer pedantry
to exclude the right to livelihood from the content of right to life. The State
may not, by affirmative action, be compellable to provide adequate means
of livelihood or work to the citizens. But any person who is deprived of his
right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established
by law can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life
conferred by Article 21.”
49
50
Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 70, at pg. 423.
51
State ex rel. Hughes v. Cleveland 47 N.M. 230.
52
City of Ft. Smith v. Bruce 186 Ark. 423.
53
Price v. Society for Savings 64 Conn. 362.
54
In re Riegelmann’s Estate 178 Misc. 475.
55
Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600.
56
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., (1985) 3 SCC 545.
29
Hence, it can be inferred that if whole or part of the salary or pension is deferred,
it amounts to a denial of the right to life under Article 2149 of the Indian
Constitution.
[3.1] Pension As A Means Of Social Welfare.
51. It is submitted that pension is not a comparatively modern concept and was
prevalent even during alien rule. The colonizers paid pensions to their employees
with the object of retaining their loyalty even after their years of service had
perished. They did the same for their countrymen so as to ensure that their quality
of life persists even after their retirement. With the change in society from a
feudal one to one emphasizing social welfare and justice, pensions were
prioritised and treated as not only a payment made for previous employment but
as a means of achieving social security in old age and avoiding destitution.
52. The main goal of pension is to ensure that the retiree or pensioner lives with
freedom, decency, independence, and self-respect and that the quality of life is
maintained even after the days of service and regular pay are over. Apart from
this, there is also a broader aspect to the payment of pensions, and that is to
ensure that socio-economic justice prevails for people who are beyond their
heyday. Pensions are provided for previous services rendered by the individual.
As held in Dodge v. Board of Education57pensions are closely related to wages as
they are paid to the employee for the services rendered by the employee with the
aim of providing the employee with the means to meet the expenses of life. This
also appears to be precedent for pensions, as it ensures that the pensioner is able
to maintain a stable life even after employment is over.
53. Pension is a social welfare measure. The basic reason for granting a pension is to
allow a retired employee to live with dignity in old age. As held in the case of V.
Sukumaran v. State of Kerala & Anr.58, where the Supreme Court held that
57
Dodge v. Board of Education of City of Chicago et al., 1937 SCC OnLine US SC 144.
58
V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala &Anr, Civil Appeal No. 3984 of 2010.
30
pension is succor for post retirement period, which is not a bounty payable at will,
but social welfare measure as post-retirement entitlement to maintain
dignity of employee.
54. Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will
of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service
rendered; and it is social welfare measure rendering socioeconomic justice to
those who in the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on as
assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Pension as a
retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the
Constitution. The most practical raison d'etre for pensions is the inability to
provide for oneself due to old age, as stated in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union
of India. 59
55. The High Court of Judicature of Bombay, in Purshottam Kashinath Kulkarni

&Ors v. The State of Maharashtra &Ors. 60 relied on D.S. Nakara’s case and
concluded that payment of pensions cannot be deferred. It is a hard-earned benefit
for an employee in the nature of property. Hence, depriving employees of pension
and other benefits is a violation of their rights under Article 2161.
56. A pension is a right, not a bounty or gratuitous payment. As held in the case of
Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar &Ors62
“The fundamental right to receive pension according to the rules inforce

on the date of his retirement accrued to the Appellant when heretired from
service. By making a retrospective amendment to thesaid Rule 299 (1) (b)
more than fifteen years after that right hadaccrued to him, what was done
was to take away the Appellant'sright to receive pension according A to the
rules in force at the dateof his retirement or in any event to curtail and
abridge that right. Tothat extent, the said amendment was void...”
59
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305.
60
Purushottam Kashinath Kulkarni &Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra &Ors., Writ Petition No. 2630 of
2014.
61
62
Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330.
31
Similarly, after the admission of the grant in aid provision, teachers having long
service where deprived of their previous years of service as their employment
started afresh along with denial of PF, pension and other benefits.
It was also held that,
“The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the
Government but is governed by the rules, and a government servant
coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held
that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one’s discretion. It is
only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and
other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an
order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not
because of any such order but by virtue of the rules.”
This rule was further reaffirmed in the State of Punjab & Anr. v. Iqbal Singh. 63
[3.2] Pension Rights As Upheld In The Constitution Of Sindia.
57. The judgment in Poornamal v. Union of India64held that
“Pension is not merely a statutory right but it is the fulfillment of a

constitutional promise, inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance
in case of unemployment, old-age, disablement or similar other cases of
undeserved want. Relevant rules merely make effective the
constitutional mandate.”
58. In State of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, the Supreme Court held
that pension is not a bounty but a property that cannot be taken away by
compliance of due process of law. Pension payable to retired employees is a
‘property’ under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution65. It is further submitted
that the Constitution of India permits the state to deprive any person’s right to
property by authority of law. However, in the absence of any statute governing
deferment of leave salary or pension, deprivation of right to property by retired
employees would amount to violation of constitutional right guaranteed under
Article 300A65 of the Indian Constitution.
63
State of Punjab &Anr. v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1976 SC 667 (5).
64
Poornamalv. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 345 : AIR 1985 SC 1196.
65
INDIA CONST. art. 300A.
32
59. Further, in Shri Naini Gopal v. the Union of India &Ors,66, in the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench that,
“the pension payable to the employees upon superannuation is a

‘property’ under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and it
constitutes a fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.”
60. The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory
right but also a human right. Though it is not a basic feature of the constitution or
a fundamental right, human rights are considered to be in realm of individual
rights such as the Right to health, Right to livelihood, the Right to shelter and
employment, etc as held in the case of Tukaram Kanna Joshi &Ors. thr. Power
of Attorney Holder v. M.I.D.C. &Ors.67
61. In the case of, State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair68, the Apex Court held that
pension and gratuityare no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government
to itsemployees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property intheir
hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursementthereof must be
visited with the penalty of payment of interest at thecurrent market rate
till actual payment. Hence, employees like Dr.Vasanth and others are entitled to
pensions and other benefits.
62. It is submitted, that the Apex Court took the view of treating ‘pension’ as a
deferred salary. In the case of U.P.Raghavendra Acharya v. State of
Karnataka69, it held pension to not be a bounty. It is akin to right of property. It is
correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on date of
retirement. Thereafter, the Government not only has responsibility for providing
salary grants but also provisions for pensions and other benefits.
66
Shri Naini Gopal v. Union of India &Ors., LD-VC-CW-665 OF 2020.
67
Tukaram Kana Joshi &Ors. thr. Power of Attorney Holder v. M.I.D.C. &Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7780 of
2012.
68
State of Kerala v. V. Padmanaabhan Nair, (1995) 5 SCC 690.
69
U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630.
33
63. Furthermore in, K. Nagaraj &Ors. Etc. Etc v. State of Andhra Pradesh &Anr.
Etc70, the Apex Court opined that right of person to his livelihood is property
which is subject to rules of retirement.
64. Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized such
right in property as human right which states that-
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing
and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in
the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
India is a state party to this declaration. Hence, right to property in India, is

protected not only underArticle 300A71 of the Constitution of India, but also
recognised as a human right under Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. A liberal reading of these two provisions would protect the
owners of either movable or immovable property only from the executive fiat,
imposing minimal restrictions on the power of the state.
65. In the case of G. Muralidhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh72held that
“the non-payment of leave salary and pension to retired employees is

deprivation of a citizen in right to property. Such deprivation is violative of
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 and the Constitutional
Right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and
Human Rights of livelihood as per Article 25(1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, since the governnment servants after
retirement being prisoners would be deprived of their livelihood, thought
they are under obligation to meet different expenses, including maintaining
their health condition for the rest of their life.”
66. The right to get pension is “property” and by withholding the same, the
petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g)73 and 3174 are
70
K.Nagaraj&Ors. Etc.Etc v. State of Andhra Pradesh &Anr. Etc., AIR 1985 SC 551.
71
INDIA CONST. art. 300A.
72
G. Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 4851 of 2021.
73
INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(g).
74 INDIA CONST. art. 31.
34
affected. The Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde75 had

considered the question whether a “cash grant” is “property” within the meaning
of that expression in Articles 19(1)(g)81 and 31(1)82 of the Constitution. It was
held that it was property, observing “it is obvious that a right to sum of money is
property.”
67. Pension as a retirement benefits is in consonance with and in furtherance of the

goals of the Constitution. Every state action whenever taken must be directed and
must be so interpreted as to take society one step towards the goal of establishing
a socialist welfare society. Article 41 of the Constitution76, enjoins the state to
secure public assistance in old age, sickness and disablement. This is further
supported in the judgement of Minerva Mills Ltd &Ors v. Union of India
&Ors77, where it was observed that,
“The edifice of our Constitution is built upon the concepts crystallised in

the Preamble. We resolved to constitute ourselves into a socialist state
which carried with it the obligations to secure to our people justice- social,
economic and political. We, therefore, put Part IV into our Constitution
containing directive principles of State policy which specify the socialistic
goals to be achieved.”
75
State of M.P. v. Ranojirao Shinde, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 18.
76
77
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 591.
35
[4] THE EXTENDING RETIREMENT BENFITS DO NOT AFFECT THE

FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE STATE.
68. The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the
extension of the retirement benefits does not affect the financial stability of the
State.
69. It is submitted that the judgment of B.K. Naik v. State of Karnataka78 has dealt
with the issue of implications of financial burden on the State exchequer.
Following the precedent set by the said judgment, it is stated that
“it has been held that State Administration cannot shrink its responsibility
of ensuring proper education in schools and colleges on the plea of lack of
resources and it is for the authorities to find out ways and means of
securing funds for the said purpose.”
Hence, it is meaningless for the State to contend that the extension of benefits of
pension to the employees of the aided institution would implicate a financial
burden upon the exchequer of the State.
70. Section 87 of the Karnataka Education Act, 198379, states that the employees
working in private institutions are entitled to the triple benefits scheme on par
with the employees working in institutions run by government. Hence, the State
cannot ward off its responsibility for compliance with such an order.
71. The liability for the payment of pensions to the employees of the educational
institution would only arise when the educational institution is receiving a grant-
in-aid from the government. As per the case of Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan
and others v. State of Maharashtra80,
“The right to claim a pension from the Government by a full-time

employee of a school was thus closely linked with the educational
institution receiving aid from the Government.”
78
Dr. (Ms) BK Naik &Ors. v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2015 KAR 5236.
79
80
Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (3) Mh.L.J.
36
Since the university in which the petitioner, Dr. Vasanth, is employed comes
under the grant-in-aid extended by the State of Karunadu, the extension of the
benefits of pension is possible in the present scenario 81.
72. It is submitted that the purpose of grant-in-aid is to ensure that the workings of
the institution are smooth concerning the imparting of education. For this
purpose, it needs to ensure that the employees of the institution are provided with
benefits to provide them with an incentive to work for the institution. It is to be
noted that in the case of Chandigarh Admn. v. Rajni Vali82, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the State Government that provides grant-in-aid to private
schools to ensure the smooth running of the institution, there is no justification for
denying the claim of the employees of the institution for pay parity. The
government’s difficulty in bearing additional financial burdens cannot be
accepted as a valid ground for denial of pay parity.
73. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the petitioners in the case of B.K.
Naik v. State of Karnataka76 have contentedly stated that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the claim of the teachers in aided schools for parity in the
matter of pay and pension to be the same granted to teachers working in
government schools and colleges and has granted such parity, the same cannot be
denied on the grounds of financial burden to the State as it would not be a valid
ground for denying the pay parity.
74. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that, in the case of Chairman Rly.
Board v C.R. Rangadhamaiah83, it was held that pension is in a nature such that
it is not a bounty, but it is to be treated as a deferred salary, and it is akin to the
right of property; it is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the
employees as of the date of retirement. Hence, the contentions of the respondent
alleging that the extension of such pensionary benefits s to the employee would
financially burden the State Exchequer do not hold strong.
81
Moot Prop.¶ 2.
82
Chandigarh Admn. v. Rajni Vali, (2000) 2 SCC 42.
83
Chairman Rly. Board v C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) 6 SCC 623.
37
75. It is submitted in the U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Others v. State of

Karnataka84, the Hon’ble Court held that a notification from the state can be
issued accepting the pay recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee with
retrospective effect as it is beneficial to the employees. In the present scenario, no
such pay revision committee has been set up to review and recommend the
payment of pensions to the employees of the institution. The Constitution of the
Pay Revision Committee would act as a basis for the State to take responsibility
for the extension of benefits of pension instead of evading such responsibility
because of the financial burden on the State Exchequer.
76. The State of Karunadu makes it clear that
“there is no compulsory duty of extending the grant-in-aid to any colleges

including law colleges. The government can extend grant-in-aid when the
institution is unable to maintain and administer itself.”
It is to be noted that there is no mention of the financial condition of the Law

College, where Dr. Vasanth, who is presently working as a Professor in Law (as of
2015), was too weak to administer the grant-in-aid from the state. Further note that
The Act, was introduced because the State Exchequer should not face financial
burden due to pension and giving salary to employees considering the pre-service
of aided institutions teachers would make it precarious.85 Hence, the state cannot
contend that the extension of the benefits of pension will be a burden on the State
Exchequer.
77. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Subrata Sen v. Union of India86
“Payment of pension does not depend upon Pension Fund. It is the liability
undertaken by the Company under the Rules and whenever becomes due
and payable, is to be paid. Pension is neither a bounty, nor a matter of
grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex-gratia
payment. It is a payment for the past services rendered.”
84
U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630.
85
Moot Prop.¶ 3.
86
Subrata Sen v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 71.
38
Here, the Supreme Court has stated that the extension of pensions to employees is
a social welfare measure, rendering socio-economic justice to the people who
endlessly toil for their employer.
78. Further, in the case of Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and others v. State of
Maharashtra87, the liability of the government to pay pensionary benefits to a
retired employee of a private school can arise only if the government has
undertaken to pay 100% grant to the school. Hence, the liability of the state of
Karunadu so pay the pensionary benefits would arise as the Law College wherein
the petitioner is employed would have to extend the pensionary since it falls
under the institutions that have accepted the grant-in-aid from the State88.
79. It is submitted that the extension of pensionary benefits would also extend to the
provision of quality education. The state must undertake full responsibility to
provide quality basic education, which would include payment of full pension to
the retired teachers.
80. The extension of the pensionary benefits to the employees of the educational
institution is a vested right of the teachers who have retired from the institution
under the grant-in-aid scheme. As held in the case of Deshmukh v. State of
Maharashtra89
“it is neither a bounty nor largesse to be given by the employer.”
81. In the case of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar90, the Constitution bench
decided and ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend
upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules, and a
government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim a pension.
Grant of pension is not at the discretion of anyone, and it is only to quantify the
amount concerning the service rendered by the servant.
87
Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (3) Mh.L.J.
88
Moot Prop.¶ 2.
89
Id.
90
Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330.
39
82. The purpose of the pension scheme or a statute introducing the pension scheme
must inform the interpretative process, and accordingly, it should receive a liberal
construction, and the courts may not so interpret such statute as to render it
invalid. As held in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India91, payment of
pension is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behavior even
after retirement, which would imply that since the cessation of the contract of
service, it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure. The Act
prohibits the State from considering the previous service rendered by the
employees in the aided college before being admitted to the grant in aid is
erroneous in nature.
83. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the above contentions raised
in the petition would kindly be able to suggest to this Hon’ble Court that the
extension of the benefits of pension to the employees under the educational
institutions receiving the grant-in-aid from the government will not be a burden
on the state exchequer. Hence, the contention of the respondent as to whether the
financial burden would be on the state exchequer can be kindly quashed under the
powers vested by this Hon’ble Court.
91
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305.
40
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS
HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO,
1. HOLD that the Karunadu Private Aided Educational Institutions Employers

(Regulation of Pay, Pension & Other Benefits) Act, 2014 is constitutionally
invalid;
2. HOLD that the denial of previous service rendered by the petitioners before being
admitted to the grant in aid violates their rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of Sindia;
3. HOLD that the denial of pension and other benefits is a violation of rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution of Sindia;
4. HOLD that extending retirement benefits does not affect the financial stability of
the state;
5. GRANT the petitioners extension of retirement benefits and any other relief or
compensation that the Hon’ble Court deems fit and/or;
Pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interest of justice,
fairness, equity and good conscience. All of which is most humbly and respectfully
submitted.
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
41

LU34P

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LU34P

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LU34P

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LU-34

26TH NATIONAL LEVEL LAW FEST – LEX ULTIMA 2024

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARUNADU U/A 226 OF

W.P. No. ___/2024

DR. VASANTH & OTHERS ………………………PETITIONERS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .....................................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................9

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... 10

ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................................................... 12

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS .................................................................................... 13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................15

[1] THE KARUNADU PRIVATE AIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

[1.1] THE IMPUGNED ACT HAS NO LEGITIMATE AIM UNDER THE

[2.1] THE IMPUGNED ACT CANNOT INVOKE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. .. 22

[3] THE DENIAL OF PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS IS A VIOLATION

[3.1] PENSION AS A MEANS OF SOCIAL WELFARE. ...................................... 30

2. AIR All India Reporter

10. Hon’ble Honourable

11. i.e. Id Est

12. Id. Ibid

13. KAT Kerala Administrative Tribunal

14. Ltd. Limited

15. M.P. Madhya Pradesh

16. No. Number

17. NPS National Pension Scheme

18. Ors. Others

19. Pvt. Private

20. Rly. Railway

21. SC Supreme Court

22. SCC Supreme Court Cases

23. S.L.P. Special Leave Petition

24. T.N. Tamil Nadu

25. thr. Through

26. UGC University Grants Commission

II. LEGISLATION REFERRED

III. RULES REFERRED

IV. CASES REFERRED

INDIAN CASES REFERRED

35. State of M.P. v. Ranojirao Shinde, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 18 .............................. 35

FOREIGN CASES REFERRED

VI. LEXICONS REFFERED

VII. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND STATUTES

VIII. LEGAL DATABASES REFERRED

EXISTING LEGAL REGULATIONS

 The Government of Karunadu established the department of Collegiate Education

NEW LEGAL REGULATIONS

 The Government of Karunadu extended orders for Grant-in-Aid to 19 colleges, in

INCIDENT OF DR. VASANTH

 Over time, the government began to interfere in all aspects of administration,

WHETHER THE KARUNADU PRIVATE AIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

WHETHER DENIAL OF PREVIOUS SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PETITIONERS

WHETHER DENIAL OF PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS IS A VIOLATION OF

WHETHER EXTENDING RETIREMENT BENEFITS AFFECT THE FINANCIAL

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

It is submitted that the Karunadu Private Aided Educational Institutional Employers

THERE IS AN INFRIENGEMENT OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE

THE DENIAL OF PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS IS A VIOLATION OF