Smt Rindamma W/O Late Venkanna Beldar v. the Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2025WP/103258/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family pension; GESCOM; widow of deceased lineman; denial of pension on ground of divorce; no decree of divorce on record; nominee/service records; sons received benefits; apportionment between widow and children; Execution Petition No.64 of 2005; maintenance compromise; certiorari; mandamus; six weeks timeline; Articles 226/227; Koppal; Dharwad Bench; NC: 2025:KHC-D:12040; WP No. 103258 of 2024 (S-RES); Suraj Govindaraj J; decided 15 September 2025.

What did the court decide?

Certiorari issued quashing the endorsement dated 20.01.2023 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-G); mandamus issued directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to fix the family pension and release it within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order, and thereafter continue monthly payment of the fixed pension on the appointed date. ¶¶54

Smt Rindamma W/O Late Venkanna Beldar Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, the widow of deceased employee Venkanna Beldar, is entitled to family pension notwithstanding the respondents' denial on the ground that the deceased was divorced, when no decree of divorce is available on the respondents' records. +2 more

¶¶46

Court's answer

Denial of pensionary benefits on the ground of divorce is unsustainable where no decree of divorce is available on the records of the respondents; the benefits cannot be denied on that ground.

¶¶51

Ratio / Principle

There being no divorce granted by any Court, the pensionary benefits would have to be paid to the wife of the deceased employee.

¶¶47

Key takeaways

The compromise in Execution Petition No.64/2005 related only to maintenance and cannot give the employer a right to deny payment of pensionary benefits to the surviving wife upon the death of her husband-employee.ratio¶¶50
Pensionary benefits already paid to the sons of the deceased must be apportioned between the wife of the deceased and the children in the manner provided under the law.ratio¶¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a widow (aged 68) whose claim for family pension, following the death on 02.08.2022 of her husband, a lineman with GESCOM (O and M) Division, Koppal, was rejected by endorsement dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure-G) on the ground that the deceased was divorced. Held: (i) no decree of divorce was available on the records of the respondents, and in its absence pensionary benefits must be paid to the wife; (ii) the compromise in Execution Petition No.64/2005 concerned only maintenance and could not confer a right on the employer to deny pensionary benefits to the surviving wife; (iii) payments already made to the sons must be apportioned between the widow and the children as provided by law. Writ petition allowed; endorsement quashed; respondents directed to fix family pension and release it within six weeks of receipt of certified copy, and to pay month-on-month thereafter. - Suraj Govindaraj, J

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12040 WP No. 103258 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.103258 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. RINDAMMA W/O. LATE VENKANNA BELDAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. WARD NO. 3, HAMALARA COLONY, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583231.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRIYUTHS. D.V.PATTAR AND ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GESCOM (O AND M) DIVISION, KOPPAL, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583231.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GESCOM, GESCOM (O AND M) DIVISION, KOPPAL, TQ. DIST. KOPPAL-583231.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. C.R. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. ¸ÀA:PÁ¤C(«)/¯É.C/¸À¯ÉC/¥ÀA¸À/PÀ-23/2223/9039-40 DATED 20.01.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12040 WP No. 103258 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 AUTHORITY TO FIX THE FAMILY PENSION AND RELEASE THE SAME WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement bearing no. ¸ÀA:PÁ¤C(«)/¯É.C/¸À¯ÉC/¥ÀA¸À/PÀ-23/22-23/9039-40 dated 20.01.2023 passed by the respondent no.1 authority vide Annexure-G, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no.1 and 2 authority to fix the family pension and release the same with all consequential benefits as expeditiously as possible in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

c. Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶30

The petitioner was married to one Venkanna Beldar,

¶31

who was working as a lineman with respondent No.1.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12040 WP No. 103258 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

He expired on 02.08.2022. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation on 07.12.2022, for grant of pension. The said request came to be rejected by respondent-authority on 20.01.2023 at Annexure-G, on the ground that Venkanna Beldar was divorced. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the relationship between the petitioner and her husband Venkanna Beldar was strained, there is no divorce, which has been granted by any Court. The petitioner continued to be the wife of Venkanna Beldar until his expiry and as such, she is entitled for the pensionary benefits.

¶36

The learned counsel for respondents would submit that the name of the petitioner has not been shown as a nominee by Sri Venkanna Beldar in his service records. The names of his sons being found,

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12040 WP No. 103258 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

pensionary benefits have been made available to his sons, and as such, the denial on the part of the respondents of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner cannot be faulted with.

¶41

The submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the payment of pensionary benefits has been made in favour of the sons of Venkanna Beldar, and that if an affidavit from them could be filed, the same would be considered by the respondents ' authority.

¶42

He relies upon the compromise entered into in a Execution Petition No.64 of 2005, to contend that the petitioner had given up her right of maintenance and as such, the dispute between the petitioner and the husband has been resolved and she cannot claim any pensionary benefits.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12040 WP No. 103258 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Heard Shri D.V.Pattar., learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.R.Hiremath., learned counsel for respondents.

¶46

A perusal of Annexure-G, would indicate that the denial of pensionary benefits has been made on the basis of he being divorced. On enquiry as to whether the decree of divorce is available on the records of the respondents, the learned counsel for the respondents, on instruction, submits that there is no such decree of divorce which is available on the record.

¶47

The compromise, which had been entered into in Execution Petition No.64/2005 is only in relation to maintenance. There is no divorce which has been granted by any Court. If no such divorce had been granted, the pensionary benefits would have to be paid to the wife. The compromise inter se between the husband and wife as regards maintenance amount not being claimed cannot give a right to the respondents-

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12040 WP No. 103258 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

employer to deny payment of pensionary benefits to the surviving wife upon the death of her Husbandemployee.

¶51

If at all payments have been made to the sons, it would now have to be apportioned in the manner provided under the law between the wife of the deceased and the children. It cannot be denied on the ground that there is a divorce between the deceased employee and the petitioner, when there is no decree of divorce available on the records of the respondents. In that view of the matter, I pass the following;

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. Writ petition is allowed .

¶54

ii. A certiorari is issued, the endorsement dated 20.01.2023 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-G, is quashed.

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12040 WP No. 103258 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

iii. A mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.1 and 2, to fix the family pension and to release the pension within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter, continue to make payment of the pension amount so fixed month on month every month on the appointed date.

¶58

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶59

AM Ct:pa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Smt Rindamma W/O Late Venkanna Beldar v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rindamma W/O Late Venkanna Beldar v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Nilesh Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

Naganagouda S/O Shivanagouda Niralagi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri Pramod S/O Ananda Karadage Vs the Karnataka State Law University

Shivappa S/O Kallappa Dyvannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bhimappa S/O Jummappa Kyatan Vs Jumappa S/O Shiddappa Kyatan

Shri. Vageppa Satyappa Chalekar Vs the Chief Executing Officer