IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION Nos.56257–56260/2013 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI Y N SIDDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH R/O YEDEYUR AT AND POST KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101 2. SMT. Y.N. KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O M.M. NARAYAN R/O YEDEYUR AT AND POST KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101 3. SMT. Y.S. BASAVARADHYA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE A.M. SIDDALINGASHASTHRI R/O YEDEYUR AT AND POST KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572 101 4. SMT.PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O LATE A. MARIYAPPA R/O YEDEYUR AT AND POST KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENDOWMENT AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTION NEAR MINTO HOSPITAL CHAMARAJAPET BANGALORE – 560 018 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER / CHAIRMAN SRI.SIDDALINGESHWARA SWAMI KSHETHRA, YEDEYURU KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101 3. THE SECRETARY SRI.SIDDALINGESHWARA SWAMI KSHETHRA, YEDEYURU KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101 4. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA P & G S UNIT JEEVAN PRAKASH, 4TH FLOOR, J.C. ROAD, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, BANGALORE – 560 002 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.N.HEGDE, ADV. FOR R3; SRI.RAJESH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R4; R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ENDORSEMENT DT.15.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-M TO THE W.P. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO SETTLE THE EMPLOYEES' GROUP GRATUITY LIFE ASSURANCE AMOUNT TO THE PETITIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MASTER POLICY NO.GGI 35155 VIDE ANNX-B TO THE W.P. TOGETHER WITH 12% INTEREST UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 18.09.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the endorsement dated 15.5.2013 issued by the third respondent vide Annexure-M by which their claim for payment of Employees’ Group Gratuity Life Assurance amount has been rejected and consequently, to direct the respondents to settle the said amount.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are covered under the master policy No.GGI 35155, third respondent has paid the contribution, respondents have extended such benefit to the retired employees and denying the said benefit to the petitioners assigning different reasons amounts to hostile discrimination.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondents No.3 & 4 submitted that master policy has built in terms assurance provided under the type `one year renewable group term assurance’ system and according to the terms, certain payments were also made in favour of the master policy holder. The policy is in paid-up status since 1.2.2003 on account of non- payment of renewal premium due and the grantee notified its intention for the wholesale surrender value with cancellation of the contract. There is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the Corporation and hence they are not entitled for any relief against the Corporation. It was decided by the Committee of Management on 01.04.1982 to pay the employees’ salary and other emoluments as is being paid to the Karnataka Government employees. When government scale is granted, they will certainly not entitled to various other benefits under K.C.S.R as sought for.
4. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is not the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to employees group gratuity life assurance amount under the pay rules admissible to them and that is denied without any reason.
As the facts emerge from the records, the Management has surrendered the policy, it is for the grantee to decide as to what to do with the proceeds of the policy as rightly contended by the Respondent No.4. There is no vested right in the petitioners which is said to have been infringed by the impugned endorsement.
5. In the circumstances, I am of the view that petitioners have not made out any ground to entertain the present writ petitions. The writ petitions are devoid of any merit and they are accordingly rejected.
akd Sd/- JUDGE