Disposed

Smt Susheela v. the Chairman

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023WP/34033/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking family pension and gratuity. The Court directed the respondent Board to consider the petitioner's claim but required her to file an affidavit declaring herself the sole legal representative and an indemnity bond within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's case for family pension and gratuity upon compliance with filing an affidavit and indemnity bond within two weeks.

Smt Susheela Vs the Chairman — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 34033 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 34033 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUSHEELA, W/O. LATE SRI. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 4363, 62^ND CROSS, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 078.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. LOHITASHWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE )

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CHAIRMAN,

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

BENGLAURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, III FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶16

THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PROJECTS AND PENSIONS, BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, III FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 34033 of 2018

¶19

THE PENSION HEAD, BENGALURU WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, III FLOOR, CAUVERY BHAVAN KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO. 1, W/S AND SANITARY SUB- DIVISION, BANAGIRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. B. L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO 3 TO DISBURSE GRATUITY AMOUNT AS WELL AS TO RELEASE FAMILY PENSION TO THE PETITIONER BY CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THEM; ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking

¶27

direction to the respondents to disburse the gratuity amount as well as the family pension to the petitioner.

¶28

Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case

¶29

are that, the petitioner is the 2^nd wife of the late Thimmaiah. It is further stated in the writ petition that,

¶30

¶31

WP No. 34033 of 2018

¶32

the husband of the petitioner had four daughters through his fist wife-Puttalakshmamma, and all the four daughters are married and attained majority on 02.08.1987. It is further stated in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner died on 04.12.2017 and thereafter, the petitioner has approached the respondent-Board for settlement of family pension, however, same was not considered by the respondent-authorities. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶33

Sri Lohitashwa Banakar, learned counsel

¶34

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.L Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶35

Sri Lohitashwa Banakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has furnished the survival certificate to the respondentauthorities to establish the relationship between the deceased employee of the respondent-Board i.e. late Thimmaiah and the petitioner, and it is also not in dispute

¶36

¶37

WP No. 34033 of 2018

¶38

that the children of deceased married and accordingly, the petitioner sought for pensionary benefits.

¶39

Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for

¶40

the respondents submitted that petitioner has to furnish affidavit with no objection from the children of the late Thimmaiah to consider the case of the petitioner for release of pensionary benefits of her late husbandThimmaiah. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶41

Having taken note of the factual aspects on records and it is not in dispute that the name of the petitioner finds place in the nomination made by the deceased employee seeking family pension as per Annexure-R to the writ petition. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has furnished survival certificate to the respondent-Board and in that view of the matter, taking into consideration the factual aspect that the children of

¶42

the petitioner have attained majority and are not residing with the petitioner and taking into consideration the age of

¶43

¶44

WP No. 34033 of 2018

¶45

the petitioner, I am of the view that, the respondentBoard herein is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for release of family pension and gratuity, if any, to be payable on behalf of the deceased employee to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is directed to file an affidavit stating that she is the only legal representatives in the family seeking pensionary benefits of deceased Thimmaiah and also to file indemnity bond in favour of the respondent-Board. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to comply with the filing of the affidavit along with indemnity bond within two weeks from today and respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner within an outer limit of four weeks, thereafter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

¶48

SD/JUDGE

Smt Susheela v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Susheela v. the Chairman

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

D Sharanappa Vs the Principal Secretary

Ramesh Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt. Chandrakala, Vs the Union of India

Ms Diana Jose Vs State of Karnataka

Santhosha a J Vs the State of Karnataka

M Ashok Kumar Vs H R Department