Smt. S Pushpavathi Vs the Principal Secretary — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smt. S Pushpavathi Vs the Principal Secretary — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of pension and pensionary benefits upon refixation of pension consequent to her promotion, where the writ order dated 22.09.2025 directed promotion with notional benefits but denied arrears. +1 more

Court's answer

Denial of arrears of pension is sustainable: the petitioner approached the Tribunal only in 2018, more than ten years after her junior's promotion on 24.02.2006, so the delay is clearly attributable to the petitioner, who cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own lapse; hence promotion was directed with notional benefits while arrears were denied.

Ratio / Principle

No error or mistake apparent on the face of the record is made out so as to warrant review of the order dated 22.09.2025; accordingly, the review petition is rejected.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind JJ.; oral order per K.V. Aravind J), Review Petition No. 526 of 2025 in WP No.8802/2022 (S-KSAT), decided 09.01.2026 — REJECTED. Filed under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the writ order dated 22.09.2025, which had directed consideration of the petitioner — a retired First Division Assistant — for promotion to Sheristedar with effect from 24.02.2006, the date her junior Smt. B. Pushpa was promoted, with notional benefits, but denied arrears of pension and pensionary benefits on refixation. Counsel submitted that once eligibility for promotion and consequent revision of pension was conceded, arrears were due. The Court held that the petitioner approached the Tribunal only in 2018, more than ten years after the junior's promotion; the delay was clearly attributable to the petitioner, who cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own lapse; therefore promotion with notional benefits without arrears stood, and no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record warranted review. Review petition rejected.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1294-DB RP No. 526 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

REVIEW PETITION No. 526 OF 2025

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.8802 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SMT. S. PUSHPAVATHI, W/O. PARAMESHWAR H., AGED 73 YEARS, RETIRED AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, IN THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, MANGALORE,

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

RESIDING AT DEVIPRASAD, BEHIND S.P.OFFICE, BANNANJE, UDUPI -576101.

(BY SRI PANDURANGA NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONER

AND:

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE -570001.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1294-DB RP No. 526 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALORE- 575001.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE SUB DIVISION, MANGALORE -575001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS ORDER DATED 22.09.2025 PASSED IN WP No.8802/2022 (SKSAT) VIDE ANNEXURE A, TO THE EXTENT OF PETITIONER DISENTITLEMENT OF ARREARS OF PENSION AND PENSIONARY BENEFITS, UPON - REFIXATION OF HER PENSION CONSEQUENT TO HER PROMOTION TO THE POST OF SHIRESTEDAR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri. Panduranga Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, and, Sri. K.R. Rajendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1294-DB RP No. 526 of 2025

HC-KAR

The petitioner in W.P. No. 8802 of 2022 has filed

the present review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 22.09.2025. The petitioner had earlier filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal dated 31.08.2021, whereby promotion was denied on the ground of delay and laches.

The case of the petitioner is that her junior, Smt. B. Pushpa, was promoted to the post of Sheristedar on 24.02.2006. It is further contended that the petitioner’s representation for consideration for promotion was recommended on 21.02.2007 and that she is entitled to promotion from the date on which her junior was promoted. This Court, taking note of the fact that the petitioner’s junior was promoted while the petitioner was still in service, held that the petitioner was entitled to promotion from the date of promotion of her junior. Accordingly, while directing the respondent authorities to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Sheristedar with effect from the date on which her junior was promoted, this Court denied arrears on revision of pension.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1294-DB RP No. 526 of 2025

HC-KAR

The present review petition is filed seeking grant of arrears of pension. Sri Panduranga Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that once the petitioner is held to be eligible for consideration for promotion and consequent revision of pension, she would be entitled to arrears, and that denial of arrears is erroneous.

We are not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2010. Her junior was promoted on 24.02.2006, and the petitioner’s name was recommended for promotion on 21.02.2007. However, the petitioner approached the Tribunal only in the year 2018, i.e., after a delay of more than ten years from the date of promotion of her junior. The delay is clearly attributable to the petitioner. Once the delay is attributable to the petitioner, she cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own lapse.

For these reasons, this Court, while directing promotion with notional benefits, denied arrears in the facts of the present case. Upon reconsideration of the submissions

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1294-DB RP No. 526 of 2025

HC-KAR

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the

view that no error or mistake apparent on the face of the

record is made out so as to warrant review.

Accordingly, the review petition is rejected.

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/-

(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

*MV

List No.:1 Sl No.: 25