SMT. JAYAMMA v. CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In view of the above, no fault could be found with Annexure-A, Communication dated 09.11.2023, issued to the petitioner. The action of respondent No.1 is in accordance with the above stated Rule.
- Para 55. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned endorsement. Accordingly writ petition stands rejected. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3182 WP No. 16192 of 2024 It is open for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to establish her claim. Learned counsel Sri.K.S.Bheemaiah is…
Judgment
SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.17/403 2ND CROSS, JANATHA COLONY VENKATALA, YELAHANKA BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560064. (BY SRI. H MOHAN KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED ANAND RAO CIRCLE, SHESHADHRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPTD. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HEMAVATHI REHABILITATION SUB DIVISION GORURU-573120, HASSAN DISTRICT.
SMT. PUSHPA W/O SHANKARA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT VINAYAKA NAGARA KOTE WARD NO.6, 2ND CROSS ARKALGUD TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573102. (BY SRI.K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 V/O DATED 16.01.2025 NOTICE TO R3 IS H/S) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3182 WP No. 16192 of 2024 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 09.11.2023 IN ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT FAMILY PENSION TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Petitioner, claiming to be wife of deceased Shankar who was working as Work Inspector in the second respondent office, is before this Court questioning Annexure-A, endorsement dated 09.11.2023 issued by first respondent refusing to include the name of petitioner in the service records of late Shankar and rejecting the petitioner’s request for family pension.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.H.Mohan Kumara for petitioner and learned counsel Sri.K.S.Bheemaiah, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Service of notice to respondent No.3 is held sufficient. Perused the writ petition papers. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3182 WP No. 16192 of 2024
3. The petitioner claims that she is the legally wedded wife of late Shankar who was working as Work Inspector in the second respondent office. Admittedly late Shankar who was working as Work Inspector was nominated third respondent as wife for receiving family pension and pensionary benefits. When respondent is nominated as the person to receive family pension and pensionary benefits, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no option but to follow the nomination in terms of Section V Rule 302 of KCSRs.
In view of the above, no fault could be found with Annexure-A, Communication dated 09.11.2023, issued to the petitioner. The action of respondent No.1 is in accordance with the above stated Rule.
There is no ground to interfere with the impugned endorsement. Accordingly writ petition stands rejected. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3182 WP No. 16192 of 2024 It is open for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to establish her claim. Learned counsel Sri.K.S.Bheemaiah is permitted to file Vakalath within two weeks. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.