Dismissed¶57

Smt Girijamma @ M.G. Girijamma v. Advocate General of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2025RP/213/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2025:KHC:291; Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Justice V Srishananda, 07-01-2025; Review Petition No. 213 of 2024 by Smt Girijamma @ M.G. Girijamma against Advocate General of Karnataka and others; review of judgment dated 15.11.2023 in R.F.A. No. 563/2008; whether Advocate General's office pension rules override the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; family pension not part of deceased's estate; Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani and Others (2016) 16 SCC 229; Violet Issaac Vs. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 725; Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; review petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

It is a well settled principle of law that rules framed by an authority are only for an internal arrangement and cannot override the right of a party under the Succession Act. ¶32

Smt Girijamma @ M.G. Girijamma Vs Advocate… — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 15.11.2023 in R.F.A. No. 563/2008 requires review on the ground that the rules framed by the office of the Advocate General regarding drawing of pension prevail over the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

¶31

Court's answer

It is a well settled principle of law that rules framed by an authority are only for an internal arrangement and cannot override the right of a party under the Succession Act.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

In the case on hand, insofar as pension is concerned, the parties are entitled to urge their respective contentions before the appropriate forum, and such liberty has already been granted by this Court in the judgment under review.

¶55

Key takeaways

The observations made by this Court in the order under review or in this order shall not affect the right of the review petitioner in any such proceedings.ratio¶56
This Court noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court (in Nitu, taking into consideration Violet Issaac) has made a harmonious interpretation of the Family Pension Rules and the Succession Act, under which family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased.obiter¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition under Section 114 r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC against the judgment/order dated 15.11.2023 in R.F.A. No. 563/2008 (High Court of Karnataka) — Ground urged: rules framed by the office of the Advocate General regarding drawing of pension prevail over the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Held: rules framed by an authority are only for internal arrangement and cannot override the right of a party under the Succession Act — Counsel relied on Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani and Others, (2016) 16 SCC 229, where the Apex Court (considering Violet Issaac Vs. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 725) held that family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and harmonised the Family Pension Rules with the Succession Act — Insofar as pension is concerned, parties remain entitled to urge their contentions before the appropriate forum, liberty having already been granted in the judgment under review — Observations in the order under review or this order shall not affect the review petitioner's rights — Review petition dismissed; I.A. No. 1/2024 stands disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:291 RP No. 213 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO. 213 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT GIRIJAMMA @ M.G. GIRIJAMMA W/O LATE H N KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO.31, 4TH A CROSS TRIVENI ROAD YESHWANTHAPUR, BENGLAURU-560022

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HARISH H V.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ADVOCATE GENERAL OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶15

CHIEF SECRETARY KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶16

SMT LALITHAMMA W/O LATE H N KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:291 RP No. 213 of 2024

¶19

4. PRASHANTH

¶20

S/O LATE H N KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R3 AND R4 ARE R/AT NO.80, OPPOSITE NIRMAL JNAN PRIMARY SCHOOL NEAR SOUDHAMINI CHOULLTRY BANK COLONY KONANAKUNTE BENGALURU-560062

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE I OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 15.11.2023, PASSED IN R.F.A. NO.563/2008, PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard Sri. Harish H.V., learned counsel for the review petitioner. The present review petition is filed seeking review of the order passed in R.A.No.563/2008.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:291 RP No. 213 of 2024

¶30

Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits

¶31

that the rules framed by the office of the Advocate General regarding the drawing of Pension would prevail over the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [for short, ' the Succession Act' ] and therefore, the judgment passed in this appeal needs a review.

¶32

It is a well settled principle of law that the rules framed by an Authority is only for an internal arrangement and it cannot override the right of a party under the Succession Act.

¶33

In support of his argument, Sri. Harish H.V. has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani and Others reported in (2016) 16 SCC 229 , wherein in paragraph Nos. 14 to 18, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

¶34

" 14. Let us look at the provisions of the Scheme, in pursuance of which the pension is to be paid in respect of services rendered by late Shri Yash Pal. Clause 4(ii) of the Scheme defines the term “family”, which reads as under:

¶35

“ 4. (ii) “Family” for the purpose of this Scheme includes the following relatives of the officer—

¶36

(a) wife, in the case of a male officer;

¶37

(b) husband, in the case of a female officer;

¶38

(c) minor sons;

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:291 RP No. 213 of 2024

¶41

(d) unmarried minor daughters;

¶42

(e) widowed/legally divorced daughters; and

¶43

(f) the parents of an unmarried officer.”

¶44

15. So far as the respondent mother is concerned, she has not been included in the definition of the term “family” for the reason that as per the provisions of subclause (f), parents of an unmarried officer would be a part of the family and therefore, the respondent mother would not be included in the family of late Shri Yash Pal as he was married.

¶45

16. So far as the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are concerned, it is true that the properties of a Hindu, who dies intestate would first of all go to the persons enumerated in Class I of the Schedule as per the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act and therefore, so far as the properties of late Shri Yash Pal are concerned, they would be divided among the respondent mother and the appellant wife, provided there is no other family member of late Shri Yash Pal alive, who would fall within Class I heirs, but position in this case, with regard to pension, is different.

¶46

17. It is pertinent to note that in this case the pension is to be given under the provisions of the Scheme and therefore, only the person who is entitled to get the pension as per the Scheme would get it. Similar issue had arisen before this Court in Violet Issaac v. Union of India reported in (1991) 1 SCC 725 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 551 and after considering the relevant provisions, this Court came to the conclusion that family pension does not form

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:291 RP No. 213 of 2024

¶49

part of the estate of the deceased and therefore, even an employee has no right to dispose of the same in his will by giving a direction that someone other than the one who is entitled to it, should be given the same. In the instant case, as per the provisions of the Scheme, the appellant widow is the only family member who is entitled to the pension and therefore, the respondent mother would not get any right in the pension. Of course, it cannot be disputed that if there are other assets left by late Shri Yash Pal, the respondent mother would get 50% share, if late Shri Yash Pal had not prepared any will and it appears that late Shri Yash Pal had died intestate and no will had been executed by him.

¶50

18. For the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, the High Court committed an error by giving a direction that the respondent mother should also get 50% share in the pension. In view of the aforestated legal position, the entire pension would be payable to the appellant widow."

¶51

On careful perusal of the said provisions of law, it is noted that in the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was concerned with the definition of the " family" as per Clause 4(ii) of the Scheme wherein, the definition of the " family" was found. The Hon'ble Apex Court also took into consideration the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Violet Issaac Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 1 SCC 725 and has ruled that family pension does not form part of

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:291 RP No. 213 of 2024

¶54

the estate of the deceased and therefore, an employee has no right to dispose of the same by way of a will. In other words, a harmonious interpretation has been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the Family Pension Rules and the substantiate statute namely, the Succession Act.

¶55

In the case on hand, insofar as the pension is concerned, the parties are entitled to urge their respective contentions before the appropriate forum and such a liberty has already been granted by this Court in the judgment under review.

¶56

At this stage, it is submitted by Sri. Harish H.V. that such an application has been made to the Advocate General and no order has been passed. If any such order is against the interest of the review petitioner, she may work out her remedy in accordance with law. The observations made by this Court in the order under review or this order shall not affect the right of the review petitioner in any such proceedings.

¶57

With aforesaid observations, the review petition is dismissed .

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:291 RP No. 213 of 2024

¶60

In view of disposal of the review petition, I.A.No.1/2024 would not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of accordingly.

¶61

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶62