Allowed

Sri Ranganatha T S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024WP/23629/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disabled son of a deceased municipal employee sought family pension under a 2004 Government notification; authorities did not act on his representation. The High Court directed respondents to dispose of the representation dated 19.12.2022 and consider the communication dated 28.02.2023 in accordance with law within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 3 and 4 to dispose of the representation dated 19.12.2022 and consider the letter dated 28.02.2023 in accordance with law within three months.

Sri Ranganatha T S Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38913 WP No. 23629 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 23629 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RANGANATHA T.S. S/O LATE SRI. SRINIVAS AND LATE SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶8

SMT. KANAKA K.R. W/O SRI. RANGANATHA T.S., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶9

BOTH R/A SHANEESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, UDAYANAGARA, DANTARAMAKKI, CHIKKAMAGALURU, JYOTHINAGARA POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577102

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI SWAROOP S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU-562101

¶16

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHIKKAMAGALURU-562101

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38913 WP No. 23629 of 2023

¶19

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PENSIONS AND SMALL SAVINGS DEPARTMENT, CHIKKAMAGALURU-562101

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 TO DISPOSE THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 19.12.2022 AT ANNEXURE-A EXPEDITIOUSLY WITHIN A PERIOD OF 1 MONTH (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

¶27

(1) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the Respondent No.3 and 4 to dispose the application of the Petitioner dated 19.12.2022 at Annexure-A expeditiously within a period of 1 month (Annexure-A).

¶28

(2) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction on the Respondent No.4 to consider the letter issued by the Respondent No.3 dated 28.02.2023 bearing No. CMC/Sibbandi(1)/CR/41/2017-18 (Annexure-B).

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38913 WP No. 23629 of 2023

¶30

(3) Award costs of this proceeding and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the above circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

The petitioners contend that petitioner No.1 and

¶32

his brothers Sri. Manjunath T.S and Nagaraj T.S are children of Sri Srinivas and Smt. Nagarathnamma. Smt. Nagarathnamma was serving the Municipal Corporation of Chikkamagaluru as ‘D’ Grade employee and died during service on 15.05.2021. They contend that their father, Sri Srinivas predeceased his wife. The petitioners contend that Smt. Nagarathnamma left behind the petitioner No.1 and his brothers as the legal representatives. The petitioner No.1 contends that he is physically disabled and suffers from locomotor disability of 75%. He claims that he married petitioner No.2 and they have two children. He contends that the State Government issued a Notification dated 05.08.2004 granting benefit of family pension to the children of deceased Government employees who suffer from mental/physical disability. In that regard, petitioner

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38913 WP No. 23629 of 2023

¶34

No.1 filed an application before respondent No.3 seeking benefit of family pension enclosing the required documents. The respondent No.3, in response, addressed a letter dated 28.02.2023 to respondent No.4, who was requested to take further action. The respondent No.4 did not take any action on the said representation. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner No.1 was dependent on his mother and therefore, he was entitled to family pension, as he was disabled. He submits that, his representation was in the light of Government Notification dated 05.08.2004 and therefore, a duty is cast upon the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the representation in accordance with law.

¶36

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶37

submitted that, if the petitioner No.1 is entitled for family pension, the same would be considered in accordance with

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38913 WP No. 23629 of 2023

¶39

law and appropriate orders would be passed on the representation filed by petitioner No.1.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to respondent Nos.3 and 4 to dispose off the representation of the petitioner No.1 dated 19.12.2022. Similarly, a direction is issued to respondent No.4 to consider the communication addressed by respondent No.3 dated 28.02.2023 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶41

This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶42

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶43

THM

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri Ranganatha T S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ranganatha T S v. State of Karnataka

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

Devakumar. H. R. Vs State of Karnataka

Anjanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Gurumalleshwara Maha Vidya Samsthe (R) Vs Sri M. Suresh

M C Sunanda Vs the State of Karnatkaa

C Dhanaraju Vs High Court of Karnataka

Sri v G Venkatesh Vs the District & Sessions Judge