Allowed

Sri. M N Balanaikar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2026WP/100210/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired Karnataka University Superintendent challenged continued recovery of commuted pension value while his representation under Rule 376(14) KCSR remained unconsidered. Following an earlier coordinate bench order, the court quashed the endorsement, directed consideration of the representation within six weeks, and stayed recovery until a reasoned order was passed.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement quashed; respondents to consider representation dated 25-11-2025 within six weeks; no recovery from pension until reasoned order passed.

Sri. M N Balanaikar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:427 WP No. 100210 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 100210 OF 2026 (S-R)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. M.N. BALANAIKAR, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: RTD. SUPERINTENDANT, KUD., R/O. BASAVANAGAR, HALYAL ROAD, DHARWAD-580003.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MANJANNA E

¶15

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.30 10:48:04 +0530

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC-D:427 WP No. 100210 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD-580003.

¶22

FINANCE OFFICER, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT (PENSION) PAVATE NAGAR, DHARWAD-580003.

¶23

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R5; SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT-4 AND 5 TO TREAT THE PERIOD 15 YEARS IN SUB-RULE (14) OF RULE 376 OF KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICE RULES 1958 AS 11 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS (130 MONTHS) FOR RECOVERY OF LUMPSUM AMOUNT PAID TO THE PETITIONER IN MONTHLY INSTALLMENT FROM PENSION PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER AND TO EXTEND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS ARISING THERETO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT-4 TO REFUND THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF COMMUTATION OF PENSION HAVING ALREADY BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE PETITIONER WHO HAS PAID AS PER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-11-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 TO PAY FULL PENSION TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:427 WP No. 100210 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner a retired Superintendent of Karnataka University Dharwad has approached this Court seeking directions in relation to recovery of commuted value of pension under Rule 376(14) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958.

¶33

Heard Sri.Laxman T.Mantagani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Nandini B.Somapur, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and Sri.K.L.Patil, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶34

Learned counsel on both the sides fairly submit that issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by order passed by this Court in the case of Basanagouda S. Hiregoudar Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others¹ (Basanagouda) , wherein this Court directed consideration of the representation

¶35

1 WP No.107168/2025 D.D 25.09.2025

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:427 WP No. 100210 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

submitted by petitioner therein and granted interim protection from recovery pending such consideration. It is submitted that the present petitioner is similarly placed and is entitled to identical relief.

¶39

4. This Court in Basanagouda’s case has held as

¶40

under;

¶41

“1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶42

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

¶43

a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the period 15 years, in sub-rule (14) of rule 376 of Karnataka Civil Service rules 1958 as 10 years and 8 months (128 months) for recovery of lumpsum amount paid to the petitioner in monthly installment from pension payable to the petitioner and to extend all consequential benefits arising thereto, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶44

b. Issue any other order or direction, directing the respondents to refund the excess amount of communication of pension having

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC-D:427 WP No. 100210 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

already been recovered from the petitioner who has paid more than 10 years and 8 months as per the representation dated 28.08.2025 vide annexure-d and direct the respondent no.1 to 5 to pay full pension to the petitioner.

¶49

c. Issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble court may deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶50

3. The respondents proposing to recover the commuted value of pension beyond 12 years, the petitioner submitted the representation on 28.08.2025 at Annexure-D. The said representation has still not been considered, but the respondents are proposing to recover the amount. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶51

4. Whenever any representation is submitted to any statutory authority or a Governmental authority it is required for the said authority to consider the same and pass necessary orders within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting the same. Neither having been done, I pass the following;

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:427 WP No. 100210 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

ii. A mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 28.08.2025 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-D within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶57

iii. Needless to say, until such representation is considered and order is passed, no recovery can be made from the petitioner.”

¶58

It is brought to the notice of this Court that despite submission of the representation dated

¶59

25.11.2025(Annexure-B), respondent No.4 has issued an endorsement stating that the recovery would continue till compilation of commutation and till further orders of the finance department. Such an endorsement, it is contended, is without authority of law particularly when the representation itself remained unconsidered.

¶60

It is well settled that whenever representation submitted to the statutory or Government authority, the same is required to be considered and decided within a reasonable time. Continuation of recovery without

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC-D:427 WP No. 100210 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

adjudication of the representation cannot be sustained.

¶65

Accordingly, this Court pass the following;

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) The writ petition is allowed .

¶68

ii) The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.4 is held to be unsustainable.

¶69

iii) Mandamus is issued, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 25.11.2025 (AnnexureB) in accordance with law within a period of six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶70

iv) It is made clear that no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner’s pension, until representation is considered and a reasoned order is passed.

¶71

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶72

PJ/ CT-MCK

¶73

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29

Sri. M N Balanaikar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M N Balanaikar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ghodawat Fresheners LLP Vs Union of India

Maradi Sannakanimavva Vs State of Karnataka

Thimmanna S/O. Venkappa Hanagandi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. R H Havanur Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B v Santoji Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Ninganagouda S/O.Budanagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka