Dismissed

Smt Putalakshmamma R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2022WP/6204/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against the Administrative Tribunal order refusing to process family pension. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner failed to prove her relationship as legally wedded wife due to interpolation in the wedding card and lack of a valid declaration.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 23.02.2022 made in Application No.1354/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Smt Putalakshmamma R Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.6204/2022 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT PUTALAKSHMAMMA R W/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.6/4/1 SRIKANTESHWARA NAGARA, 6^TH ‘A’ MAIN ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560086

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI NAGARAJULU NAIDU.G, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA STATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES,

¶15

¶16

NO.1, ANNA SWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560042.

¶17

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) KARNATAKA STATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES, NO.1, ANNA SWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560042.

¶18

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) PARK HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP.)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2022 MADE IN APPLICATION NO.1354/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN APPLICATION NO.1354/2021 ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondents.

¶25

The petitioner claims to be the wife of one Chikkahanumaiah, who passed away and who was in the employment of respondent No.2. The petitioner claims to have

¶26

¶27

married him after the death of his first wife and hence applied for process and grant of family pension.

¶28

The case of the respondent Department is that the employee had at no point of time disclosed the marriage with the instant petitioner. That in the absence of any materials and records, it is not possible to process the family pension in favour of the petitioner. The Tribunal, after examining the materials placed on record, more particularly, wedding card has observed some interpolation in the wedding card. As regards other materials, the same have not been considered on the premise that they are mere Xerox copies and the Tribunal has observed that it is for the applicant/petitioner herein to establish her relationship with the deceased employee i.e., she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and that the same has to be in a manner known to law and we do not find any error in the reasoning. Apparently, there are no material much less any declaration by the deceased employee that he has contracted marriage with the petitioner. In that view of the matter, we do not find any grounds, which warrants further consideration of the petition at the hands of this Court.

¶29

¶30

The order of the Tribunal stands affirmed. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

dn/CT-HR

Smt Putalakshmamma R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Putalakshmamma R v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri.Sathish M.R. Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Venkatesh S

Sri D G Jagachandra Vs Sri D G Jagannatha Setty

Sri B S Shivalingaiaha Vs the State of Karnataka

The Karnataka Public Service Commission Vs Sri Somashekar M S

Shreenivas K Devarushi Vs the State of Karnataka