Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Smt Premakumari on 1 August, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29846-DB
WP No. 3327 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION No. 3327 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
D. SUBBAIAH ROAD,
Digitally signed
by VALLI MYSURU 570001.
MARIMUTHU
3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH
PARK HOUSE ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA)
AND:
1. SMT. PREMAKUMARI,
W/O. LATE M. S. REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 80J, 5TH CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29846-DB
WP No. 3327 of 2022
HC-KAR
KUMARASWAMY STREET,
THYGARAJA ROAD,
MYSORE.
...RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/09/2019 IN
APPLICATION No.2498/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU, AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioners - State authorities are before this Court questioning the order dated 20.09.2019 in Application No.2498/2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short ), whereunder the communication dated 25.08.2016 of petitioner No.3 is quashed with a direction to settle the retirement benefits of late -3- NC: 2025:KHC:29846-DB WP No. 3327 of 2022 HC-KAR M.S. Revanna, the husband of the respondent, by taking into consideration the date of his death as 06.02.2005, as per the Court decree dated 13.03.2013 in O.S.No.1191/2012 along with the admissible rate of interest, and release the same to the respondent.
2. Heard Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners. The respondent though served is unrepresented.
Perused the entire writ petition papers.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent filed Application No.2498/2017 before the Tribunal questioning the communication dated 25.08.2016 of petitioner No.3, whereby petitioner No.3 refused to grant family pension from the date of absconding of the government servant i.e. the husband of the respondent. The respondent claimed that she is the legally wedded wife of late M.S. Revanna, who was working as an Assistant Teacher at Government Lower Primary School, Voddarahalli Village, -4- NC: 2025:KHC:29846-DB WP No. 3327 of 2022 HC-KAR Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District, and he is alleged to have been missing from 06.02.2005. On the representation of the respondent, petitioner No.1-State Government under Government Order dated 26.08.2009 sanctioned provisional family pension to the respondent. The respondent sought sanction of family pension and pensionary benefits from the date of missing of her husband late M.S. Revanna i.e. 06.02.2005. The respondent also filed O.S.No.1191/2012 before the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysore, seeking declaration that her husband M.S. Revanna died on 06.02.2005 and the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the death benefits, family pension and other benefits. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 13.03.2013. The representation dated 26.05.2016 (Annexure-10) were made requesting the petitioners-authorities to sanction family pension and to grant terminal benefits from the date of missing of her husband i.e. 06.02.2005. Under the Communication dated 25.08.2016 (Annexure-11), -5- NC: 2025:KHC:29846-DB WP No. 3327 of 2022 HC-KAR petitioner No.3 intimated the respondent that she would be entitled to family pension and pensionary benefits from the date of decree i.e. 13.03.2013. Questioning the same, the respondent was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal under the impugned order dated 20.09.2019 in Application No.2498/2017 passed the following order;
" The Application is hereby allowed. The endorsement dated 25.08.2016 issued by the third respondent as per Annexure-A11, is quashed.
(ii) The third respondent is directed to settle the retiremental benefits of Late M.S. Revanna by taking into consideration the date of death of M.S. Revanna as 06.02.2005 while in service as per the Court decree dated 13.03.2013 passed by the IV Additional I Civil Judge & JMFC in O.S.No.1191/2012 and in accordance with rules along with admissible rate of interest and release the same to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:29846-DB WP No. 3327 of 2022 HC-KAR
4. Questioning the same, the State authorities are before this Court in this writ petition.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that though it is alleged that the husband of the respondent was missing from 06.02.2005, suit for declaration to declare that the respondent is entitled to receive death benefits, family pension and other pensionary benefits was filed only in the year 2012. It is further submitted that the said suit was decreed by judgment dated 13.03.2013 declaring that M.S. Revanna, the husband of the respondent is legally dead. As he is missing since 06.02.2005, the respondent would be entitled to pension and other benefits from the date of the judgment and decree. Learned Additional Government Advocate would further submit that the Tribunal committed an error in directing the petitioners to settle the retirement benefit of late M.S. Revanna in favour of the respondent by considering the date of death as 06.02.2005.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:29846-DB WP No. 3327 of 2022 HC-KAR
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LIC of India -vs Anuradha1, in support of her contention.
7. Having heard learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusal of writ petition papers, the only point that would fall for consideration is, " Whether the order impugned i.e. the order passed by the Tribunal requires interference at the hands of this Court?"
8. The answer to the above point would be partly affirmative holding that the respondent would be entitled to retirement benefits of her husband late M.S. Revanna from the date he attained superannuation i.e. 29.02.2012 for the following reasons;
There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent is the wife of late M.S. Revanna, who was 1 (2004) 10 SCC 131 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:29846-DB WP No. 3327 of 2022 HC-KAR working as an Assistant Teacher at Government Lower Primary School, Voddarahalli Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District, and the representation of the respondent that her husband M.S. Revanna is missing from 06.02.2005 and to treat him as dead, sought retirement benefits. Considering the representation, it appears that the State Government sanctioned provisional family pension to the respondent by letter dated 23.11.2009. Thereafter, the respondent filed suit in O.S.No.1191/2012, which was decreed as stated above. Though the husband of the respondent was missing from 06.02.2005, in terms of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) and in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in LIC of India (supra), presumption of death would arise only on lapse of seven years. The relevant paragraph 14 of the above judgment reads as follows;
"14. On the basis of the abovesaid authorities, we unhesitatingly arrive at a conclusion which we sum up in the following words: the law as to presumption of death -9- NC: 2025:KHC:29846-DB WP No. 3327 of 2022 HC-KAR remains the same whether in the common law of England or in the statutory provisions contained in Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the scheme of the Evidence Act, though Sections 107 and 108 are drafted as two sections, in effect, Section 108 is an exception to the rule enacted in Section 107. The human life shown to be in existence, at a given point of time which according to Section 107 ought to be a point within 30 years calculated backwards from the date when the question arises, is presumed to continue to be living. The rule is subject to a proviso or exception as contained in Section 108. If the persons, who would have naturally and in the ordinary course of human affairs heard of the person in question, have not so heard of him for seven years, the presumption raised under Section 107 ceases to operate. Section 107 has the effect of shifting the burden of proving that the person is dead on him who affirms the fact. Section 108, subject to its applicability being attracted, has the effect of shifting the burden of proof back on the one who asserts the fact of that person being alive. The presumption raised under Section 108 is a limited presumption confined only to presuming the factum of death of the person whose life or death is in issue. Though it will be presumed that the person is dead but there is no presumption as to the date or time of death. There is no presumption as to the facts and circumstances under which the person may have died. The presumption as to death by reference to Section 108 would arise only on lapse of seven years and would
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29846-DB WP No. 3327 of 2022 HC-KAR not by applying any logic or reasoning be permitted to be raised on expiry of 6 years and 364 days or at any time short of it. An occasion for raising the presumption would arise only when the question is raised in a court, tribunal or before an authority who is called upon to decide as to whether a person is alive or dead. So long as the dispute is not raised before any forum and in any legal proceedings, the occasion for raising the presumption does not arise."
9. A reading of provisions of Sections 107 and 108 of the Act and in terms of the above judgment, it is clear that only on lapse of seven years from the date of missing, presumption as to death of the said particular person could be considered. Therefore, a person who claims family pension and retirement benefits of such government servant who is declared as dead by the Court of law would be entitled to such benefit only from the date of Court decree.
10. The State of Karnataka has issued Official Memorandum dated 17.07.2014 (Annexure-R2), wherein it is made clear that, if the Government servant who is declared as dead by the Court, superannuates earlier to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:29846-DB WP No. 3327 of 2022 HC-KAR the date of such decree, the legal heirs of such deceased Government servant would be entitled to family pension and retirement benefits from the date of superannuation.
11. In light of the above, under Official Memorandum dated 17.07.2014 (Annexure-R2), the respondent would be entitled to family pension and retrial benefits from the date of superannuation i.e. 29.02.2012 and not from earlier date.
12. With the above, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37