A retired BMTC employee challenged an endorsement requiring him to deposit a sum to avail family pension benefits and sought provident fund pension with arrears. The Court found nothing wrong in the endorsement and rejected the writ petition as devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:27894 WP No. 21998 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 21998 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
B.SRIRANGAIAH, S/O. LATE B.BANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.221, 3RD CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR B.R.AMBEDKAR COLLEGE, MPM LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 056.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU M.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2026:KHC:27894 WP No. 21998 of 2025
HC-KAR
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., counsel for the petitioner, Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Smt.Nandita Haldipur., counsel for respondents 3 and 4 have appeared in person.
i. Issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned endorsement bearing No. ban.ma.sa/keka/lepa/bhani/kupi/2025/2022-23 dated 12/01/2023 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-G to the writ petition.
HC-KAR
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.
NC: 2026:KHC:27894 WP No. 21998 of 2025
HC-KAR
In the present writ petition, a writ is sought to quash the endorsement dated:12.01.2023. A perusal of the endorsement reflects that the Corporation has informed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,66,751/-, in case he wants to avail the family pension benefits. It is pivotal to note that, by virtue of an endorsement dated:12.01.2023, the Corporation had informed the petitioner to deposit the amount, there is nothing wrong in issuing the endorsement. Hence, I find no grounds to interfere with the endorsement and to quash the same. The
Writ Petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is rejected .
SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE
MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Corporation's endorsement dated 12.01.2023 directing deposit of Rs.4,66,751/- to avail family pension benefits was liable to be quashed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B. SRIRANGAIAH
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.M.T.C.
THE DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, B.M.T.C.
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION)
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
JYOTI M
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
