Disposed¶34

Smt N Manjula Bai v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2025WP/33048/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (S.G. Pandit, J.), NC: 2025:KHC:5420, WP No. 33048 of 2024 (S-RES), order dated 06.02.2025: writ petition by claimant as second wife of deceased Government servant (Driver, Department of Information and Public Relations) for family pension/death benefits not entertained under Article 226; matter held to lie before the Tribunal under the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; petition disposed of with liberty to approach the Tribunal. Keywords: alternative/special forum, administrative tribunal, civil post, family pension, death benefits, mandamus, second wife, Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the Administrative Tribunal established under the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to redress her grievance regarding family pension/death benefits. ¶34

Smt N Manjula Bai Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the Administrative Tribunal established under the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to redress her grievance regarding family pension/death benefits.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 should be entertained when a special forum (the Tribunal established under the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985) exists for redressal of the grievance of a Government servant regarding family pension/death benefits.

¶33

Court's answer

Since the person in respect of whom family pension was sought was a Government servant working in the second respondent Department and holder of a civil post, it is appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal established under the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

When a special forum is created for redressal of the grievance of a Government servant, the Court declines to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Administrative Tribunal established under the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to redress her grievance.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Art. 226/227, Constitution of India) by a woman claiming to be the second wife of deceased Jyothoji Rao, a Driver in the Department of Information and Public Relations, seeking a mandamus to direct respondent No. 2 to consider her representations dated 08.11.2024 for payment of death benefits, pension and equal compensatory appointment between herself and respondent No. 3. Holding that the deceased was a Government servant holding a civil post and that a special forum exists for redressal of such grievances, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 and disposed of it with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal established under the State Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5420 WP No. 33048 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 33048 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. N MANJULA BAI W/O. LATE JYOTHOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.91, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU -560056.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R. P., ADV. (VC))

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS, VARTHA SOUDHA, NO.17, BHAGAWAN MAHAVEER ROAD, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

SMT. YOGINI RAO, W/O. LATE JYOTHOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, 'SAMRUDDHI NILAYA, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, SRI RAMA BADAVANE,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:5420 WP No. 33048 of 2024

¶19

ULLAL MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560056.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SMT. JAMUNA BAI, ADV. FOR R3)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 08.11.2024 TO PAY THE DEATH BENEFITS, PENSION AND ALSO COMPENSATE APPOINTMENT EQUALLY AMONG THE PETITIONER AND R-3 UNDER ANNX-A AND B.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner who claims to be second wife of deceased Jyothoji Rao who was working as Driver in the second respondent-Department is praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her representation dated 08.11.2024 wherein she has sought for family pension.

¶26

Since the person in respect of whom the family

¶27

pension is sought was a Government servant, working in the second respondent, Department of Information and Public Relations was the holder of a civil post and

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:5420 WP No. 33048 of 2024

¶30

therefore, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal established under the State

¶31

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, ‘1985 Act’).

¶32

When a Special Forum is created for redressal

¶33

of grievance of a Government servant, I decline to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Administrative Tribunal established under the State Administrative Tribunals Act,

¶35

1985 to redress her grievance.

¶36

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶37

NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Smt N Manjula Bai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt N Manjula Bai v. the State of Karnataka

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

M/S Nakoda Auto Distributors, Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Ooredoo Q P S C Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. Khan Enterprises Vs the Assistant Commissoner of Commercial Taxes

Sri Boresha B Vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board

Sri Mahesha C K Vs Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat

Sri P Sudarshan Vs the Commissioner