Smt Rajamma Vs the Managing Director

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE/DISBURSE THE DEATH BENEFITS IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNX-C DTD 14.02.2023 WITHOUT WAITING FOR DETAILS OF COBENEFICIARY MENTIONED IN ANNX-C, BY FIXING REASONABLE TIME FOR DISBURSEMENT OF THE BENEFITS.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is mother of the deceased - L. Manjunath. It is the case of petitioner that the deceased was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Divisional Office of KSRTC Division at Kolar and he died while in service on 12.1.2023. Pursuant to his death, the widow of the deceased viz., Smt. S. Ashwini made a claim for the death benefits to Respondent - Corporation by leaving out the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed her objections to the said claim made by the widow, who is none other than her daughter-in-law,

¶29

before the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 considered the claim made by the widow and objections

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30535 WP No. 22167 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

submitted by the petitioner and passed an order granting 50% of death benefits to the petitioner and 50% to the widow of deceased viz., Smt. S. Ashwini. The petitioner submitted details of her bank account in the prescribed form to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to claim the death benefits ordered by Respondent No.2, which has not been considered and the amount has not been disbursed to petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

Heard learned counsel - Smt. Sumathi S for petitioner as well as learned counsel - Smt. H.R. Renuka for respondents.

¶34

It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is aged and suffering from several health issues & old age ailments and she is facing severe financial crisis. It is her further contention that 50% of death benefits ordered to the widow has not been

¶35

disbursed for non-furnishing of details by the widow and therefore, the other 50% has also not been released in favour of petitioner.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30535 WP No. 22167 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

3.1 It is further contention of learned counsel for

¶39

petitioner that husband of petitioner died on 8.11.2004 and the petitioner has lost her son as well and her daughters are residing with their respective husbands. Hence, she is facing severe financial crisis and the respondents have added to the woes by not disbursing the death benefits in favour of petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to respondents to release/disburse 50% of

¶40

the death benefits to the petitioner as ordered by Respondent No.2 without waiting for the details of the cobeneficiary, the widow of the deceased - L. Manjunath.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel - Smt. H.R. Renuka representing the respondents fairly contends that an order has already been passed by the Corporation apportioning 50% of death benefits of the workman in favour of petitioner and another 50% in favour of widow of the workman. Therefore, she contends that if the petitioner

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30535 WP No. 22167 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

furnishes her bank details including the account number

¶45

and IFSC code, the amount will be disbursed in her favour.

¶46

There is no dispute with regard to the deceased - L. Manjuanth being the son of petitioner and that the widow has made a claim for death benefits. Upon consideration of the claim made by the widow and objections of the petitioner, an order has been passed by the respondent - Corporation apportioning 50% of the death benefits in favour of the petitioner and another 50% in favour of widow of the deceased.

¶47

Under the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in view of the memo and the documents filed by the respondents which show that the respondent - Corporation has ordered for disbursal of death benefits to an extent of 50% to the petitioner.

¶48

Accordingly, I pass the following

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:30535 WP No. 22167 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.2 - Divisional Manager, KSRTC, Division Office, Kolar Division, Kolar / the Disbursement Authority to release and disburse 50% of the death benefits in favour of the petitioner as ordered by the respondent - Corporation, upon the petitioner furnishing the relevant bank details. On submission of the relevant bank details, within a week's time, the amount shall be released/disbursed by way of electronic transfer in favour of the petitioner.

¶55

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶56

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Smt Rajamma v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rajamma v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar S Vs the Managing Director

Sri R M Venkatappa Vs the Managing Director

Khajuline S/O Mohammad Sadiq Kotur S/O Mohammad Sadiq Kotur Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority

Sri H C Basavarajappa Vs the Managing Director

The Management of Bharath Fritz Werner Ltd., Vs Bharath Fritz Werner Karmika Sangha