Disposed¶44

Sri Gopinath Beldona S/O Beldona Narasinga Rao v. Union of India

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2026WP/106591/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Higher pension; EPFO; para 44(ix) of Sunil Kumar judgment (AIR 2022 Supreme Court 5634); representation dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure-F); Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Ballari (respondent No.5); order dated 30.01.2025 rejecting higher-pension claim; writ of mandamus; Articles 226 and 227; KKSRTC/KKRTC respondents; writ petition disposed of; liberty to challenge rejection order; Karnataka High Court Dharwad; WP No.106591 of 2024 (S-R); Justice K.S. Hemalekha; decided 28.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge respondent No.5's order dated 30.01.2025 rejecting the higher-pension claim, in accordance with law. ¶44

Sri Gopinath Beldona S/O Beldona Narasinga Rao Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge respondent No.5's order dated 30.01.2025 rejecting the higher-pension claim, in accordance with law.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondent No.5 (Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ballari) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure-F) and disburse higher pension in light of the direction in paragraph 44(ix) of the Supreme Court judgment in EPFO v. Sunil Kumar.

¶30

Court's answer

Since the petitioner's representation had already been considered and an order passed thereon on 30.01.2025 rejecting the higher-pension claim, the grievance raised in the writ petition (seeking consideration of the representation) does not survive for consideration; accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 30.01.2025, if so advised, in accordance with law.

¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India) by an advocate-retired employee seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.5 (Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ballari) to consider his representation dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure-F) and disburse higher pension in light of the direction in paragraph 44(ix) of the Supreme Court judgment in Employees Provident Fund Organization v. Sunil Kumar (AIR 2022 Supreme Court 5634). At the preliminary hearing, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 submitted that, pursuant to the representation, respondent No.5 had already considered it and, by order dated 30.01.2025, rejected the petitioner's claim for higher pension, filing a memo to that effect. Holding that the grievance of seeking consideration of the representation therefore did not survive, the Single Bench (Mrs Justice K.S. Hemalekha, Dharwad; order dated 28 January 2026) disposed of the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 30.01.2025, if so advised, in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:998 WP No. 106591 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.106591 OF 2024 (S-R)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. GOPINATH BELDONA S/O. BELDONA NARASINGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. PLOT NO.7A, 1^ST CROSS, SHANKAR COLONY, S.N.PET, BALLARI-583101.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VADIRAJA PADAKANDLA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MANJANNA E

¶15

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.05 11:01:12 +0530

¶16

UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶17

CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION) EMPLOYEES, PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066.

¶18

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-1 (PENSION), EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, GOVT. OF INIDA, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066.

¶19

COMMISSIONER REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC-D:998 WP No. 106591 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, POST BOX NO.25146, BENGALURU-560025.

¶24

ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVANA, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY II STAGE, PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101.

¶25

MANAGING DIRECTOR KKSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, KH ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶26

PROVIDENT FUND TRUSTEE PROVIDENT FUND BRANCH, KKSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, KH ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶27

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER SIRUGUPPA ROAD, KKRTC BALLARI-583101.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. P.V.GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5; MISS. VIDYASHRI N.MULIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND TO DISBURSE HIGHER PENSION IN THE LIGHT OF DIRECTION CONTAINED IN PARA 44 (ix) OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION V.SUNIL KUMAR VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC-D:998 WP No. 106591 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.5 to consider his representation dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure-F) and to disburse higher pension in terms of the direction contained in paragraph 44 (ix) of the Apex Court in the case of Employees Provident Fund Organization and another Etc., Vs. Sunil Kumar B. and others¹ (Annexure-B) .

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8 submits that pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.5 has already considered the same and has passed an order on 30.01.2025, whereby, the claim of the petitioner seeking higher pension has been rejected. A memo to the said effect is filed.

¶39

In view of the fact that the representation of the petitioner has already been considered and an order has

¶40

1 AIR 2022 Supreme Court 5634

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC-D:998 WP No. 106591 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

been passed thereon, the grievance raised in the present writ petition seeking consideration of the representation does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Reserving the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 30.01.2025, if so

¶45

advised in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶47

EM CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri Gopinath Beldona S/O Beldona Narasinga Rao v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gopinath Beldona S/O Beldona Narasinga Rao v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha W/O Gopal Babshet Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Divya W/O Nitay Babshet Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitay S/O Gopal Babshet Vs the State of Karnataka

Renavva W/O Lakshman Madar Vs Kadampur Gram Panchayat

Basappa Akhandappa Hadapad Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Prakash S/O Ramachandra Revankar Vs the State of Karnataka