IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.39848 OF 2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT.GLADYS VANAJA KUMARI SINCE DECEASED BY THE LR, SMT.NANCY CHRISTINA W/O.G.V.JAYACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.321/2013 4TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS PETECHAMANAHALLI EXTENSION KOLAR-563 101 (BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA BHAT M. SRI.NARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE CAUVERI BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 009 2. THE CONTROLLER (P AND A), KPTCL, CAUVERI BHAVAN BANGALORE-560 009 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ELCL) STATE LOAD DISPATCH CENTRE, KPTCL, ANAND RAO CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 009 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELCL) BANGALORE SOUTH CIRCLE BESCOM, … PETITIONER NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 (BY SRI.ANNU BHARADWAJ FOR SRI.HARIKRISHNA S. HOLLA, ADVOCATES) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER. DECLARE THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN DENYING 50% OF THE FAMILY PENSION AND OTHER TERMINAL BENEFITS PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 16, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in denying 50% of the family pension and other terminal benefits payable to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional as the same is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to pay full family pension along with all the terminal benefits to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it became payable to her till the date of payment.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to delete the entry/statement made in the form prescribed for Karnataka Government Employees’ Family Welfare Benefit Fund on 10.7.1979, as the said entry is not in accordance with Regulation 225 of the KEBESR.
2. Petitioner is wife of late A.O. Devanandum who was a Junior personal Assistant in KPTCL. Undisputedly, petitioner and late A.O. Devanandum had a Judicial separation in the year 1974. Late A.O. Devanandum died on 22.8.1980. In this background, petitioner claimed family pension in terms of KEB Employees’ Service Regulations (for short ‘Regulation’). Respondents have disbursed 50% of the family pension to the petitioner in terms provision. Remaining 50% has not been disbursed in view of the fact that petitioner had taken a judicial separation from the deceased employee. One Smt. Saroja – has been nominated as nominee of late A.O.Devanandum and her name has been entered in the nomination of the Family Welfare Benefit Fund on 10.7.1979.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Smt.Saroja, whose name has been reflected at Annexure-Q – Nomination has not claimed family pension for all these years. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to 100% family pension. It was also contended that nomination of Smt.Saroja on 10.7.1979 (Annexure- Q) is not an authenticated since it was not attested by the Competent Authority. In this backdrop, question for consideration in this petition is ‘whether petitioner is entitled to have the benefit of remaining 50% Family pension or not?
4. Regulation provides for distribution of 50% of family pension if there are more than one wife to an employee of the respondent-KPTCL. In the regulation, there is no provision as to what would be further action if there is a silent on the part of the one of the wife in not claiming the benefit of family pension and whether 100% family pension be released infavour of another wife. Thus, there is no infirmity in declining 100% family pension to the petitioner. Hence, petitioner has not made out a case.
5. Accordingly, petition is dismissed reserving liberty to raise the dispute, if any, in respect of Annexure – Q that Smt. Saroja was not the wife of the deceased - A.O. Devanandum and to get declaration that petitioner is alone legally wedded wife before appropriate Forum to claim remaining 50% pension etc.
6. Insofar as 2nd prayer is concerned, petitioner is entitled interest at 18% per annum on 50% pension, since it was not released with reference to the petitioner’s representation dated 6.1.1981 on account of pendency of P. and S.C. No. 66/1980 and it has attained finality in M.F.A. on 15.09.2005. Thereafter, it seems, petitioner has filed a review petition and it has attained finality. Further, petitioner for the first time demanded remaining 50% family pension and interest. On 10.5.2012, petitioner demanded and respondents have settled 50% family pension on 24.6.2014. In this backdrop, petitioner is entitled to 8% interest per annum during the period from March 1981 with reference to petitioner’s representation dated 6.1.1981 till 15.9.2005. Thereafter, petitioner is entitled to interest from 10.5.2012 to 24.6.2014. These are with reference to the date of two representations dated 6.1.1981 r/w 10.5.2012, further, decision in M.F.A. dated 15.9.2005 and disbursement 50% of the family pension on 24.6.2014.
7. Concerned respondent is hereby directed to calculate and disburse interest amount for the aforesaid period @ 8% per annum within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE BS