Petitioner sought family pension as mother after deceased son's widow remarried and became ineligible. Court held rejection ignoring statutory provision for parental entitlement was unsustainable and allowed writ.
Quashed impugned letters; directed officer to reconsider petitioner's claim for family pension within two months.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11498 WP No. 101732 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.101732 OF 2023 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. SIDDALINGAPPA NAIKAR, AGE ABOUT: 63 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: VPO MURKIBHAVI, TALUK: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI, STATE: KARNATAKA – 591 121.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH MANJANNAE COURT OFKARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.08.17 11:33:46 +0530
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, TIKOOT - II COMPLEX, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 0663.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI VENKATESH M. KHARVI, DSGI FOR R1 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING ANNEXURE – H I.E THE LETTER DATED 14.02.2020 ISSUE BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ANNEXURE – J I.E., THE LETTER DATED 03.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3. TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION, MORE IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE FAMILY PENSION IN RESPECT OF THE DECEASED RAJU S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA NAIKAR TO THE PETITIONER (I.E. TO THE MOTHER OF THE DECEASED RAJU S/O SIDDALINGAPPA NAIKAR), BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ANNEXURE – L I.E. THE LETTER DATED 05.12.2020. THE DIRECTION MAY KINDLY GIVEN TO THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE FAMILY PENSION IN RESPECT OF THE DECEASED RAJU S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA NAIKAR TO THE PETITIONER FROM 12-05-2019 (I.E. FROM THE DATE OF RE-MARRIAGE OF WIFE OF DECEASED RAJU S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA NAIKAR) TO THE PETITIONER (I.E. TO THE MOTHER OF THE DECEASED RAJU S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA NAIKAR) AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11498 WP No. 101732 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
“(i). To Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or direction by quashing Annexure – H i.e the Letter dated 14.02.2020 issue by the Respondent No.2 and Annexure – J i.e., the Letter dated 03.03.2020 issued by the Respondent No.3.
(a). To issue an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to grant the family pension in respect of the deceased Raju S/o. Siddalingappa Naikar to the Petitioner (i.e. to the mother of the deceased Raju S/o. Siddalingappa Naikar), by taking into consideration the Annexure – L, i.e. the Letter dated 05.12.2020.
(b). The direction may kindly given to the Respondents to grant the family pension in respect of the deceased Raju S/o. Siddalingappa Naikar to the Petitioner from 12-05-2019 (i.e. from the date of re-marriage of wife of deceased Raju S/o. Siddalingappa Naikar) to the Petitioner (i.e. to the mother of the deceased Raju s/o. Siddalingappa Naikar).
(c). Pass any other orders and grant any other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and
necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
petitioner submitted that petitioner’s son by name Raju S/o Siddalingappa Naikar was working as constable in Border Security Force. While he is in service, on 13.12.2015, when he was traveling, he died in a train accident at Bhopal. It was submitted, upon his death, respondent no.7, who was his widow, was sanctioned family pension, as per PPPO no.02186160085 through SBI, Bailhongal. Subsequently, she re-married on 12.05.2019. Upon re-marriage, widow was rendered ineligible for family pension. As per extant rules, petitioner, who was mother, was entitled for family pension. Therefore, she submitted request to respondent no.2, on 23.05.2019. However, under impugned endorsement, respondents no.2 and 3 have rejected her claim. Challenging same, present writ petition is filed.
Likewise, Sri Venkatesh M Kharvi, learned DSGI for respondents no.1 to 6 referred to statement of objections in opposition of writ petition.
that as per relevant provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (for short ‘Rules’), extract of which is produced by learned DSGI as per Annexure-R1 and to be specific Rule 10(a) and (b) provided for claim by parents of deceased Government servant for family pension, in case widow or widower and all children of deceased, cease to be eligible for family pension. It was further submitted, Annexure-R2 Official Memorandum dated 26.10.2022 had rendered respondent no.7 ineligible for pension. Moreover, respondent no.7 had offered no objection in favour of petitioner for pension.
record.
Boarder Security Force is not in dispute. Upon his death, respondents had sanctioned family pension in favour of respondent no.7, his widow. She received pension upto 12.05.2019, when she re-married. Same would disentitle her for family pension.
under above circumstances on no other ground than failure to take this relevant aspect into account, impugned endorsement would be unsustainable. Hence, following:
ORDER
iii. Authorized officer amongst respondents no. 1 to 6 shall re-consider petitioner’s claim for sanction of family pension in light of representation at Annexure-L within an outer limit of two months from date of receipt of certified copy of order and inform petitioner of result.
Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE
VB/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
3 issues framed by the court
Whether parents are entitled to family pension when widow ceases to be eligible due to remarriage
Whether rejection of parental claim without considering ineligibility of widow was sustainable
Whether low court correctly applied Rule 10 regarding eligibility extension
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Mallavva w/o. Siddalingappa Naikar
The Accountant Officer, PAD BSF (PAO North)
The Assistant Accounts Officer, PAO.N (NPS)
The Commandant, 32 BN BSF
The Director General, Boarder Security Force
The Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office
Ravi V.Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
