Smt Vanajakshi L Naik Vs Karnataka Power Corporation Limited

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISES) NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. REP BY SECRETARY

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:12621 WP No. 30123 of 2019

¶19

THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HRD) KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AMBIKANAGAR-581363 (N.K.)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR V. SAMBRANI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.A8P1A/457, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement bearing No.A8P1A/457 dated 22.05.2019 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioners have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to release the death benefits in their favour upon production of succession certificate.

¶26

(i) The petitioners contend that petitioner No.1 is

¶27

the wife and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children of late Mr. Maruti L. Naik, who was employed as a security guard in the respondent No.1 at its head office. The said Mr. Maruti L. Naik

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12621 WP No. 30123 of 2019

¶29

sought voluntary retirement under a scheme during the year 2004. Accordingly, pension/DCRG/commutation was granted as mentioned in the order dated 13.06.2006. The said Mr.

¶30

Maruti L. Naik had married another person named, Mrs. Mahadevi, who had filed O.S.No.129/2014 before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Mudhol, against Mr. Maruti L. Naik for maintenance. The said suit was dismissed on 15.12.2005 following which, she filed R.A.No.1/2006 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Jamkhandi. In the said regular appeal, a compromise was entered into between Mrs. Mahadevi and Mr. Maruti L. Naik in terms of which, Mrs. Mahadevi agreed that she would not make any claim to the service benefit of Mr. Maruti L. Naik. The said Mr. Maruti L. Naik thereafter opened a joint account in his name and in the name of petitioner No.1 at Syndicate Bank, Chikodi, with operating instructions by "either himself or survivor" and the said bank account was linked to the pension benefits. Accordingly, pension benefits was being credited into the amount. The said Mr. Maruti L. Naik died on 12.05.2017 leaving behind the petitioners, who succeeded to the service benefits.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:12621 WP No. 30123 of 2019

¶33

(ii) Later, petitioner No.1 made a representation to the respondent No.1 for release of pension and other benefits. However, the respondent No.2 issued an endorsement stating that the name of the petitioner No.1 was not entered in the service records as nominee and therefore, the claim of the petitioner No.1 cannot be considered. The petitioners therefore, filed P & SC No.486/2018 before the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The Court after conducting proceedings, passed an order dated 30.01.2019 directing the office to issue succession certificate in respect of pensionary benefits of the deceased - Mr. Maruti L. Naik. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the respondent No.1 - Corporation and submitted a representation along with a copy of the order passed in P & SC No.486/2018. The petitioners sought for details of the quantum of death benefits of late Mr. Maruti L. Naik, which lay with the respondent No.1 - Corporation so as to pay the stamp duty to draw up a succession certificate. The respondent No.2 rejected the representation of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners did not array any person as respondents in P & SC

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:12621 WP No. 30123 of 2019

¶36

No.486/2018. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶37

During the pendency of this petition, the respondents have furnished the details of the death benefits that lay with the respondent No.1 - Corporation, which is acknowledged by the petitioners.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as of now, there is no dispute between the petitioners and Mrs. Mahadevi over the death benefits and the pension payable to the petitioners in view of the settlement arrived at in R.A.No.1/2006. He contends that the respondent No.2 could not have rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that there were no respondents arrayed in P & SC No.486/2018. He contends that there is no need to array any person as the respondent as any person interested to make a claim would object against granting succession certificate, in which event the Court could follow procedure as prescribed. He therefore, contends that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.1, warrants interference.

¶39

6 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:12621 WP No. 30123 of 2019

¶41

The writ petition is opposed by the respondents, who contended that the petitioner No.1 is not the wife of Mr. Maruti L. Naik and he did not mention the name of petitioner No.1 as his nominee in the service records. They further contended that they were not aware that the petitioner No.1 was the wife of Mr. Maruti L. Naik and that other petitioners were the children of Mr. Maruti L. Naik. It is contended that the name of Mrs. Mahadevi appeared in the service records as the nominee and wife of Mr. Maruti L. Naik. In view of the above, the respondent No.1 did not consider the request of the petitioners and therefore, issued endorsement stating that Mr. Maruti L. Naik had given his family particulars as Mr. Lakshman Shettyappa Naik as father, Mrs. Gouravva Lakshman Naik as mother and Mrs. Mahadevi as his wife. It is also contended that the compromise entered into between Mr. Maruti L. Naik and Mrs. Mahadevi in R.A.No.1/2006 is opposed to the principles of law and is therefore, unacceptable and illegal.

¶42

The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the above contentions and contended that the petitioner No.1 cannot make any claim to the family pension and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable for the reliefs sought for.

¶43

7 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:12621 WP No. 30123 of 2019

¶45

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶46

counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶47

It appears that Mr. Maruti L. Naik, an employee of the respondent No.1 had sought voluntary retirement during the year 2004, following which, a pension/DCRG/commutation was granted as per the order dated 13.06.2006. The said Mr. Maruti L. Naik had mentioned the name of Mrs. Mahadevi in the service records as his nominee. It is not in dispute that the said Mrs. Mahadevi had filed a suit in O.S.No.129/2014 against Mr. Maruti L. Naik claiming maintenance and the said suit after being dismissed, was challenged in R.A.No.1/2006 by Mrs. Mahadevi, where a compromise was entered into between them. In terms of the compromise, Mrs. Mahadevi gave up all her claim to the service benefits of Mr. Maruti L. Naik. No doubt there is no decree of dissolution of marriage of Mrs. Mahadevi with Mr. Maruti L. Naik. However, the parties had consciously admitted that Mrs. Mahadevi shall not be entitled to the service benefit of Mr. Maruti L. Naik. The petitioners have now obtained a succession certificate to claim the family pension and the Court after perusing the material, passed an

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12621 WP No. 30123 of 2019

¶49

order directing the registry to issue a succession certificate. The respondent No.2 cannot doubt the validity or enforceability of the succession certificate on the ground that no person was arrayed as a respondent. When an application is filed for a succession certificate, the petitioners were bound to disclose the particulars as mentioned in Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. If any person is interested to oppose the grant of a certificate, he may file objection against granting a certificate. Therefore, the finding of respondent No.2 that the certificate cannot be acted upon is mischievous. The respondent No.1 has filed a memo on 14.11.2024 enclosing therewith particulars of the family pension payable to the survivor of Mr. Maruti L. Naik, which reveals that as on October, 2024, a sum of Rs.12,27,759/- is payable.

¶50

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and also having regard to the fact that Mrs. Mahadevi has not staked her claim to the family pension, this writ petition is disposed off by directing the respondent No.1 to release the family pension payable to the petitioners as per the succession certificate granted in P & SC No.486/2018. This shall be

¶51