Petitioner sought a writ directing the Deputy Commissioner to consider her claim petition for pensionary benefits under the Pensions Act. The Court held that her claim had already been conclusively rejected by competent civil courts, rendering further adjudication unnecessary, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 107795 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PREMA W/O. KRISHNA BHAT, @ SMT.PREMA W/O VENKATESH PALEKAR, R/O: OPPOSITE APMC GATE, NEAR AYYAPPA CROSS, HUBBALLI ROAD, SIRSI-581401.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SURESH N. KINI, AND SRI LINGESH V.KATTIMANE, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
VINAYAKA B
V
VINAYAKA Location:High Court of
B V Karnataka,
Dharwad
Date:
2023.02.25
13:24:13
+0530
WP No. 107795 of 2017
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANT V.MOGALI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) (BY SRI SANTOSH B.MANE, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION OR ORDER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM PETITION DATED 21.10.2016 FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE PENSIONS ACT BY THE PETITIONER PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to consider her claim petition dated 21.10.2016 filed under Section 5 of the Pensions Act and for other reliefs.
WP No. 107795 of 2017
WP No. 107795 of 2017
and the said P & S.C.No.2/2012 came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 29.07.2013 and the petitioner could not challenge the same due to financial constrains. It is further contended that subsequently the petitioner filed an application dated 01.06.2016 before the 2nd respondent requesting the payment of pensionary benefits of the aforesaid late Venkatesh and the same was refused by the 2nd respondent vide communication dated 17.06.2016 on the ground that the Succession Certificate in respect of the estate of Venkatesh Palekar had already been issued/granted in favour of respondents No.3 to 7 in P. & S.C.No.7/2011 and consequently, the claim of the petitioner for granting pensionary benefits cannot be entertained. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the 1st respondent under Section 5 of the Pensions Act despite which the 1st respondent did not take any steps to consider the said claim petition and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.
WP No. 107795 of 2017
SD JUDGE
CKK/CLK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's claim petition for pensionary benefits when the claim had already been rejected by competent civil courts.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. PREMA W/O. KRISHNA BHAT
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA
THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, BHATKAL
SRI.VISHWANATH SUBRAYA PALEKAR
SRI.SHRINIVAS SUBRAYA PALEKAR
SRI.RAVIDAS SUBRAYA PALEKAR
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
