Dismissed

Ratnavva B Cholachagudda v. Ministry of Home Affairs

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2022WP/100130/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an endorsement denying family pension based on prior nominee status. Court held no fault in endorsement but directed petitioner to obtain civil court declaration to process application. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to obtain declaration from competent civil court to process application; writ petition dismissed.

Ratnavva B Cholachagudda Vs Ministry of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100130 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 100130 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RATNAVVA B CHOLACHAGUDDA W/O LATE EX-CT BASAPPA CHOLACHAGUDDA, AGED 43 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, VIII & PO. NAGUR, TQ.HANAGUND, DIST.BAGALKOT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M SELVARAJ. & SRI.JAYANT KUMAR, ADVS)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE, BLOCK NO.10, LODHI ROAD, CGO COMPLEX, PRAGATI VIHAR, NEW DELHI 110003

¶13

THE COMMANDANT, HEAD QUARTERS 32 BN BSF ANJALALA, AMRITSAR (PUNJAB).143102.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.M.B.KANAVI, CGSC FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶16

VINAYAKAB V Digitally signedby VINAYAKA BVLocation:DharwadDate:2022.06.1509:59:40 +0530

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASE TO CALL FOR ALL THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO PASSING OF THE ORDER DATED 26.01.2021 ANNEXURE-H ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE SAME CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SANCTION THE FAMILY PENSION TO PETITIONER WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF DEATH OF HER HUSBAND WITH ALL ARREARS AND OTHER BENEFITS.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP No. 100130 of 2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶23

The petitioner Smt.Ratnavva is before this court with a prayer to quash the endorsement dated 26.01.2021 at Annexure-H issued by respondent No.2 and to direct respondent No.2 to sanction the family pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of death of her husband Sri.Basappa who was working as constable in the Border Security Force.

¶24

In the impugned endorsement, it is stated that Sri.Basappa enrolled in BSF(GD) on 24.03.1986 and he was medically boarded out from service w.e.f. 30.11.2001 as he was declared unfit to be retained further in the service. Accordingly, invalid pension was released to Sri.Basappa by Pay and Accounts Division, BSF, New Delhi dated 16.07.2002. It is not denied that late Sri.Basappa died on 06.04.2008, while it is also evidenced by the death certificate dated 24.08.2021 at Annexure-C, issued by Chief Register of Birth and Deaths. However, it is stated in

¶25

¶26

WP No. 100130 of 2022

¶27

the endorsement that after the receipt of the application given by the petitioner, service records of Sri.Basappa was verified and it is found that Sri.Basappa submitted nomination form on 21.06.2000 while showing the name of Smt.Basamma as his wife and had declared that Smt.Basamma shall be the legal heir/nominee for 100% pension. However, in the writ petition, the petitioner claims that Smt.Basamma had in fact died on 02.01.1998 and to support such contention, a death certificate at Annexure-A is produced. Nevertheless, since the respondents found that the name of Smt.Basamma was entered by Sri.Basappa in the service records and more particularly, in the nomination form declaring that Smt.Basamma shall be the legal heir/nominee for 100% pension, respondent No.2 has stated in the endorsement that, the family pension as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶28

Learned Central Government Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this court to Sub-Rule(6) of

¶29

¶30

WP No. 100130 of 2022

¶31

Rule 50 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021 wherein, in the explanation it is clarified that, for the purposes of this rule, ‘widow’ and ‘widower’, shall mean a spouse, legally wedded to the deceased Government servant or the pensioner. Therefore, learned CGSC submits that since the name of Smt.Basamma has been entered by the deceased Sri.Basappa in the nomination form, naming Smt.Basamma as the legal heir/nominee to receive 100% pension, and now that it is found that petitioner claims that Smt.Basamma had died on 02.01.1998, and thereafter Sri.Basappa has filed nomination form on 21.06.2000, the claim of the petitioner that she married Sri.Basappa would become even more doubtful.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that the petitioner herein married Sri.Basappa only after the death of first wife Smt.Basamma. However, on her own saying, the petitioner has claimed that Smt.Basamma died on

¶33

¶34

WP No. 100130 of 2022

¶35

02.01.1998, but a contrary opinion or statement in the form of nomination form filed by Sri.Basappa on

¶36

21.06.2000, is found and therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

¶37

On perusing the records available, this court is of the considered opinion that no fault could be found in the impugned endorsement dated 26.01.2021 at Annexure-H issued by respondent No.2. However, it is for the petitioner to get a declaration at the hands of competent civil court to enable respondent No.2 to process the application filed by the petitioner.

¶38

Consequently, the writ petition stands

¶39

dismissed.

¶40

SD JUDGE

¶41

MBS/-

Ratnavva B Cholachagudda v. Ministry of Home Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratnavva B Cholachagudda v. Ministry of Home Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vimalakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Padmashree W/O. Mahaveer Huded Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Ganji Bhimappa S/O Ganji Hanumanthappa Vs State of Karnataka

Shivakumar S/O Bhimanna Rakkasagi, Vs the Border Security Force

Uzma Suppliers Vs Karnataka State Board

Smt. Mallavva Alias Mallavva W/O Siddappa Patil Vs Rudrappa S/O Mallappa Tirakappanavar