Disposed

Revansidha v. Union Ofindia

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2024WP/13157/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired BSF Assistant Sub Inspector, retired for unsuitability over bigamous matrimonial relationship, sought release of retiral benefits and pension. The Court held no Rule justified withholding benefits and directed settlement, permitting manual processing instead of the Bhavishya Portal.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to consider and settle petitioner's retiral benefits and pension, with liberty to file representation before the Commandant and decision within three months.

Revansidha Vs Union Ofindia — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:24782 WP No. 13157 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13157 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

REVANSIDHA S/O LAXAMAN POSTAR (RETIRED ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR/ RADIO OPERATOR BORDER SECURITY FORCE 139 BN BSF R/O HOUSE NO.45 CAUVERY NILAYA SHIVPURA, AFS YELAHANKA POST BANGALORE 560 063

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KAILESH T GOPI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

UNION OFINDIA

¶14

REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

¶15

NEW DELHI 110 001

¶16

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO.10, CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 110 003

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:24782 WP No. 13157 of 2023

¶19

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS BORDER SECURITY FORCE SECTOR HEADQUARTERS JAISALMER (NORTH) RAJASTHAN 345 001

¶20

THE COMMANDANT

¶21

139 BN BSF, SEPHINJURI KARIMGANJ ASSAM 788 725

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. K S BHEEMAIAH., ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ISSUE OF ANNEXURE-A WITH ORDER BEARING NO.617/COURT-DISC/CON/SHQ BSF JSMR(N)/2020/12659-68 DTD 11.08.2021 AND ANNEXURE-B WITH ORDER BEARING NO.104/ESTT/RE-INSTANT/139-BN/2023-25 DTD 15.02.2023 AND QUASH THE SAME AND ISSUE DIRECTION COMMANDING THE RESPONDENTS TO RE-INSTATE THE PETITIONER BACK TO SERVICE FORTHWITH WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AS IF VIDE ANNEXURE-A WITH ORDER BEARING NO.617/COURT-DISC/CON/SHQ BSF JSMR(N)/2020/12659-68 DTD 11.08.2021 AND ANNEXURE-B WITH ORDER BEARING NO.104/ESTT/RE-INSTANT/139-BN/2023-25 DTD 15.02.2023 HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED AT ALL.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:24782 WP No. 13157 of 2023

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Sub Inspector/Radio Operator with the Border Security Force, is retired from service because it is opined that he has entered into matrimonial relationship with another while his marriage to Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa subsisted and therefore unsuitable under the relevant Rules. The petitioner has filed this petition calling in question the decision in this regard as also the rejection of his application by the competent authority for his reinstatement.

¶30

Sri. Kailesh T. Gopi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has filed an application for early hearing, is categorical in stating before this Court that the petitioner will not pursue his grievance as against the decision to retire the petitioner from service on the ground of suitability and he only requests this Court for directions to the respondents to pay retiral benefits and pension. The

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:24782 WP No. 13157 of 2023

¶33

learned counsel submits that if Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa has filed proceedings for maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance, the petitioner has himself commenced proceedings for dissolution of marriage. The learned counsel emphasizes that coercive measures are issued against the petitioner for his failure to pay maintenance as ordered by the Court and hence, the petitioner’s financial constraints are aggravated.

¶34

Sri. Kailesh T. Gopi argues that the authorities [ the respondents ] cannot refuse payment of retiral benefits or pension because the Service Rules do not provide for that, and neither can the respondents insist upon the petitioner to file documents signed by Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa or her personal documents or insist upon processing the petitioner's request for payment of retiral benefits and pension on " Bhavishya " Portal.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:24782 WP No. 13157 of 2023

¶37

Sri. K. S. Bheemaiah, the learned counsel

¶38

for the respondent, is heard in the light of this limited canvass. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner's grievance against non-payment of retiral benefits and pension is outside the scope of writ petition inasmuch as no relief is sought for in that regard, and he also submits that this Court may take note of the fact that there will be multiple proceedings if the petitioner's request is accepted because Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa and her children have filed objections.

¶39

Sri. K. S. Bheemaiah further submits that

¶40

this Court on 03.08.2023 in the present petition, has called upon the Senior Civil Judge, Basavakalyan to direct Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa to furnish her PAN Card, Aadhar Card and other documents directing the respondents herein to consider those documents for grant of provisional pension, and that despite this specific order, the documents have not been

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:24782 WP No. 13157 of 2023

¶43

furnished by Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa. In rejoinder,

¶44

Sri. Kailesh T. Gopi reiterates that, given the estrangement and pending proceedings, the petitioner cannot prevail upon Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa to sign any document or share documents because of matrimonial proceedings.

¶45

In the light of the limited canvass now presented, the question for consideration is:

¶46

Whether this petition must be disposed of directing the respondents to settle the petitioner's retiral benefits and pension and if such directions are to be issued, the conditions upon which such directions must be issued .

¶47

The petitioner, though initially aggrieved by the decision to retire him on the ground of nonsuitability, has now reconciled to such decision, and he prays for directions to release the benefits that he is entitled to. The respondents do not place on record any Rule or Regulation that justify withholding

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:24782 WP No. 13157 of 2023

¶50

the retiral benefits or pension except for stating that

¶51

the petitioner's legally wedded wife, Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa and her children have filed objections. This Court must record that the respondents cannot assume to themselves the power of arbiters in the absence of any statutory provision to decide on the tenability of the objections filed by Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa and her children, and the controversy in that regard, especially with the decision finding the petitioner non-suitable on such ground, must be left open for decision by the competent Court. Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa or any of her children must necessarily work out their remedy in the pending or the other appropriate proceedings.

¶52

In the absence of relevant Statutory Regulations, the amounts payable consequent to the petitioner being retired on finding him non-suitable, must be paid so that he also complies with the

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:24782 WP No. 13157 of 2023

¶55

directions to pay maintenance. The respondents contend that the petitioner has not sought for specific relief for release of retiral benefits, but this Court must observe that the writ Courts cannot take a pedantic approach to close the present proceedings and drive the petitioner to another. It should be open to a party who comes to the writ Courts with a bigger canvass to limit such canvass to seek appropriate remedy, and the Courts must consider the same to issue appropriate directions. In the light of the afore, this Court must direct the respondents to settle the petitioner's claim for all retiral benefits, including the pension.

¶56

The respondents’ insistence on production of Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa’s PAN Card, Aadhar Card and other documents, is because they have to process the request on " Bhavishya " Portal. This Court must record that if the orders of this Court on 03.08.2023 is communicated to the Court and there

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:24782 WP No. 13157 of 2023

¶59

is no response from Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa or others, this must have a vital bearing. Further, this Court finds considerable force in Sri. Kailesh T. Gopi relying upon Rule 53 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 [for short, ' the Pension Rules '] to contend that the respondents cannot insist on processing the petitioner's request for retiral benefits/pension on " Bhavishya " Portal and that they must process the papers, given the peculiarities of the case manually.

¶60

The provisions of Rule 53 of the Pension

¶61

Rules read as under:

¶62

" 53. Processing of pension cases in the online pension sanctioning system . -

¶63

(1) Unless otherwise exempted by a general or special order of the Government, the pension case of a Government servant shall be processed through 'Bhavishya'.

¶64

(2)(a) In the case of a department or office or person exempted from the purview of Bhavishya in accordance with sub-rule (1),

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:24782 WP No. 13157 of 2023

¶67

the details or documents in respect of the person due to retire shall be transmitted in physical mode and his pension case shall be processed manually.

¶68

(b) In a case or cases where a particular action or activity cannot be performed under Bhavishya, such action or activity shall be performed manually."

¶69

The provisions of Rule 53(3) do provide for manual processing. The facts and circumstances are peculiar. The petitioner, if insisted that he should file Smt. Jyoti Revansiddappa’s PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and other documents to be signed by her, will be called upon to perform the impossible. Hence, the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

[a] The petition stands disposed of directing the respondents to consider and communicate the decision in the light of this Court's observation on the petitioner's request for settlement

¶72

of retiral benefits and pension.

¶73

11 -

¶74

NC: 2024:KHC:24782 WP No. 13157 of 2023

¶75

[b] The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a representation with the fourth respondent - the Commandant - enclosing a certified copy of this order within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of such order.

¶76

[c] The fourth respondent shall ensure that appropriate action, including recommendations, if any, are put up and a decision is taken, and that the petitioner is informed accordingly within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

Revansidha v. Union Ofindia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revansidha v. Union Ofindia

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 Chandrashekar Y K Vs the Zilla Panchayath

Akshata Mohan Phadake Vs Union of India

Smt Lalitha T Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri B R Puttaraju Vs Chief Librarian

Dr Chandra Kumar S G Vs Director General of Police &

Dr N R Shanthamallaiah Vs University of Agricultural Sciences