Allowed

Smt Sameena Yasmin v. the Accountant General (a and E)

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2024WP/20148/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A mentally challenged petitioner's family pension claim was granted only from 2018 because her 2013 Form-E disability certificate was issued by a Psychiatrist instead of a District Surgeon. The Court held rejecting it on this technical ground was arbitrary and directed grant of family pension from 20.07.2013.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.01.2021 set aside; respondent to grant family pension to petitioner from 20.07.2013 onwards within three months.

Smt Sameena Yasmin Vs the Accountant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34832 WP No. 20148 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 20148 OF 2022 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SAMEENA YASMIN D/O LATE AZMATHULLA S., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.412, 17^TH CROSS, SAGAYAPURAM, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560045. SINCE MENTALLY DISABLED REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL GUARDIAN.

¶8

SMT. SHABINA BEGUM W/O BARKATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.412, 17^TH CROSS, SAGAYAPURAM, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560045.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAVEED S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

AND: Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLIRAMU PRIYA THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A AND E) Location: HIGH P.B. NO.5369, COURT OF RESIDENCY PARK ROAD, KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AMARESH N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DATED 29.01.2021 BEARING NO.PV2/R3/1119241998/2500045462/ 2020-21 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT FAMILY PENSION FROM 20.07.2013.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:34832 WP No. 20148 of 2022

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

The petitioner, a mentally challenged lady and the daughter of a Ayurvedic Doctor who was employed at J.N Kote Taluk, Chitradurga, has filed this petition challenging an order dated 29.01.2021 issued by the respondent by which her claim for family pension was granted with effect from 21.08.2018 rather than from the date on which her father died.

¶18

The petitioner contends that her father retired from service as a Ayurvedic Doctor on attaining the age of superannuation while her mother pre-deceased him on 25.12.2004. Her father died on 21.02.2012. The respondent sanctioned family pension to the petitioner vide letter dated 24.04.2019 with effect from 21.08.2018. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.07.2019 to the respondent contending that she was entitled for the family pension from 21.02.2012. However, the said representation was not considered which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court in W.P. No.46942/2019. This Court in terms of the order dated 23.09.2020, directed the respondent to consider the

¶19

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34832 WP No. 20148 of 2022

¶20

representation of the petitioner dated 10.07.2019. Consequent thereto, the respondent considered the said representation and passed an order on 29.01.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for family pension from 21.02.2012 and instead granted it from 21.08.2018 on the ground that the petitioner had earlier filed medical certificate of disability in Form ‘E’ issued by a Psychiatrist, Bengaluru Medical College, Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, on 20.07.2013 while the Rule 10(1)(c) of the Karnataka Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules, 2002) required the petitioner to furnish a certificate duly certified by the District Surgeon and such certificate / Form E was submitted by the guardian of the petitioner which was duly signed by the District Surgeon only on 21.08.2018.

¶21

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is mentally challenged and an application was filed before the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in G and W.C. No.16/2017 for appointing a guardian. The Court after considering the mental health of the

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:34832 WP No. 20148 of 2022

¶25

petitioner, had appointed Mrs.Shabina Begum, sister-in-law of the petitioner, as her guardian. He contends that the petitioner had furnished a certificate in the year 2013 where a Psychiatrist after examining the petitioner had declared that the petitioner is suffering from serious mental disorder, namely, schizophrenia. He contends that the petitioner was therefore entitled to claim the family pension, if not from the date of death of her father but at least from the date of the certificate issued by the Psychiatrist. He further contends that the certificate presently issued by the District Surgeon also establishes beyond doubt that the petitioner is still suffering from schizophrenia. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is entitled to claim the family pension as she was dependent on the deceased Government servant.

¶26

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

¶27

has filed a statement of objections contending that in terms of the Rule 10(1)(c) of the Rules, 2002, the fact that a dependent child is unable to earn his or her living should be brought to the notice of the head of office duly supported by a medical certificate in Form-E from a Medical Officer not below the rank of District Surgeon. It is contended that earlier certificate

¶28

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34832 WP No. 20148 of 2022

¶29

produced by the petitioner was not from the District Surgeon but was from a Psychiatrist at Bangalore Medical College, Victoria Hospital and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to claim the family pension. It is contended that the certificate dated 21.08.2018 obtained by the petitioner from the District Surgeon was forwarded by the Chief Administrator, Ayush Division, Bengaluru to the respondent on 16.01.2019 and therefore, family pension was granted from 21.08.2018. Learned counsel for the respondent also justified the statement of objections and contended that the petitioner became entitled to family pension only on the date she filed an application along with the certificate in Form-E issued by the District Surgeon.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶31

The fact that the deceased Government servant left behind the petitioner who was mentally ill, established beyond doubt that the petitioner was entitled to claim the family pension. However, the question as to when the petitioner was

¶32

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34832 WP No. 20148 of 2022

¶33

entitled to the family pension arises for consideration in this petition.

¶34

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had made a claim to family pension in the year 2013 itself when a certificate in Form-E was issued by a Psychiatrist, Bangalore Medical College, Victoria hospital, Bengaluru. It is a matter of common sense that mentally challenged persons are to be examined and certified by a Psychiatrist rather than a District Surgeon. Be that as it may, it is indisputable that the petitioner had made an attempt to claim family pension on 20.07.2013 when she furnished a certificate in Form-E duly certified by a Psychiatrist from a recognized medical hospital. Therefore, the fact that she was dependant on the deceased Government servant, was writ large and the respondent could not have rubbished it on a technical ground. Pension is something that the Government servant has earned for himself, the benefit of which has to go to his dependant/s. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner who outlived her mother, conferred on her the right to claim the family pension, given her mental condition and her inability to maintain herself. The fact that she continues to suffer from such mental condition is evident

¶35

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34832 WP No. 20148 of 2022

¶36

from Form-E certified by the District Surgeon on 21.08.2018. The rejection of the application of the petitioner for grant of family pension from 20.07.2013 by the respondent but granting it from the date she furnished a certificate from the District Surgeon is thoroughly arbitrary and belies ordinary common sense and consequently, the respondent deserves to be hauled up and directed to grant family pension to the petitioner at least from the date when the petitioner first submitted certificate in Form-E i.e., 20.07.2013 and onwards.

¶37

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order bearing No.PV2/R3/1119241998/ 2500045462/2020-21 dated 29.01.2021 restricting the family pension to the petitioner from 21.08.2018 is set aside and the respondent is directed to grant family pension to the petitioner with effect from 20.07.2013 and onwards. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶38

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶39

SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Smt Sameena Yasmin v. the Accountant General (a and E)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sameena Yasmin v. the Accountant General (a and E)

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

Dr. v. Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

A S Mallikarjunaswamy M.Sc., M.Phil., Vs the Principal Secretary of the Govt of Karnataka

Sri P Venkataiah Vs State of Karnataka

B Shivagangappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Mamatha. B. S. Vs State of Karnataka

K. S. Premakumari Vs Karnataka State Co-Operative Marketing Mahamandal Ltd.