Legal heirs of a deceased MESCOM employee were denied family pension on ground that her marriage contravened service conduct regulations. Court quashed the endorsement qua the minor daughter, holding children of a void marriage are legitimate and entitled to family pension, and directed re-examination.
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:15104 WP No. 2746 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.2746 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.8-36, KOLANGARE HOUSE SOMESHWARA TALAPADY TALAPADY MANGALORE – 575 023
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
(GOVT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) MANGALORE- 575001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD 23.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE R3 AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal
heirs of one Smt.Shareena T, who was wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioner No.2 and she was employed
with respondents – MESCOM. Petitioner No.1’s wife died
in harness and petitioners claiming to be husband and daughter respectively submitted a representation
requesting respondents company to settle family pension and also to pay retiral benefits.
being in contravention of Regulation 28(2) of the ‘Rules
1988’ and are not entitled for family pension.
hand, this Court deems it fit to examine Regulation 28(2) of the ‘Rules, 1988’ and the same is extracted, which reads as under;
“ ªÀÄAq½AiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ËPÀgÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw À E®èzÉ M§â ¥ÀwßAiÀÄÄ fêÀAvÀ EgÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DUÀĪÀAw®è ”
judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
out of second marriage are also entitled for family pension, however, second widower was excluded.
1 (2000) 2 SCC 431
claims. One Smt.Shareena T, who was employed with
respondents Company, married petitioner No.1 namely T.K.Abdul Rahiman. The respondents have declined to settle family pension and pay retirement benefits on the ground that the employee namely Smt.Shareena T has married petitioner No.1, who had already a living wife.
In the light of the judgment cited supra, petitioner No.1 cannot claim to be a dependent as his marriage with Smt.Shareen T clearly contravenes Regulation 28(2) of the
Rules, 1988. However, in the light of the judgment cited supra, respondent No.2, who is a daughter born in the wedlock of Smt.Shareena T and petitioner No.1, dehors
her legal status of being child born out of void marriage, her rights to claim family pension as she being dependent on mother cannot be declined.
No.3 may hold good insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned, respondent No.3 is required to revisit the case
on hand by taking cognizance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment (cited supra). It is also relevant to take cognizance of the fact that though employee of respondents – MESCOM by contravening Rule 28(2) of the Rules, 1988 married petitioner No.1 while she
was in service, no action was initiated by the respondents. This issue is also dealt by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment (cited supra). In absence of departmental enquiry and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court protecting a right of a minor children even though born out of a void marriage, respondent No.3
has to re-examine the claim of petitioner No.2 by taking cognizance of the judgment (cited supra).
to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:15104 WP No. 2746 of 2024
(ii) The endorsement dated 23.02.2023 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure –J is hereby quashed insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned.
(iii) Respondent No.3 re-examine the claim of petitioner No.2 by taking cognizance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RAMESHWARI DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS (Cited Supra).
(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of order copy.
(v) Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a child born out of a marriage void under Regulation 28(2) is entitled to family pension of the deceased MESCOM employee.
Whether the endorsement denying family pension to the employee's legal heirs was sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and OthersRelied on¶6
(2000) 2 SCC 431 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
T.K.Abdul Rahiman
Ameena Beevi
The Asst. General Manager (Admn), MESCOM
The Superintendent Engineer (Ele), MESCOM
The Executive Engineer (Ele) (O & M Division), MESCOM
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
