Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ningamma W/O Late G.R. Rangappa vs The Chairman, Karnataka Power ... on 26 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(4)KARLJ147
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
ORDER N.K. Patil, J.
1. Petitioner, assailing the correctness of the Official Memorandum dated 4th December 1999 issued by second respondent vide Annexure A only to the extent of benefits paid to respondents 3 to 5 with a direction to make good the same to the petitioner. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to provide her with a suitable employment on compassionate grounds either to petitioner or to her nominee.
2. The grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is the first wife of the deceased Sri. G.R. Rangappa, who was the employee of the respondents 1 and 2 - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (now called "Company"). While the deceased husband of petitioner, late Sri. G.R. Rangappa was working in the respondents 1 and 2 - Company as Mechanic Grade II Telecommunication Division, Bangalore Zone, Bangalore, he passed away on 4th December 1984 and the retirement benefits payable to his legal heirs has been extended/paid to petitioner and respondents 3 to 5. It is the case of petitioner that, the said benefit has been extended to respondents 3 to 5 contrary to Chapter IX Section F of Regulation 221(b) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations and that, the said benefit ought to have been extended only to her. Therefore, it is submitted that, the said pensionary benefits paid by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 5 cannot be sustained and that, the authorities have committed a grave error and proceeded to settle the said benefits contrary to the direction issued by this Court in the Miscellaneous First Appeal in MFA No. 1639/1993 disposed of on 20th June 1996 and the order passed in Review Petition No. 539/1998 disposed of on 15th February 1999. When the authorities failed to consider her request in a proper manner, petitioner was constrained to issue the legal notice through the counsel pointing out the error committed by respondents. Therefore, in view of non consideration of the earlier directions issued by this Court in the Miscellaneous First Appeal and for not considering the legal notice issued dated 19th October 2000 vide Annexure E, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.
3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents.
4. The principal ground urged by petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, respondents 1 and 2 have committed a grave error in paying the pensionary benefits to respondents 3 to 5 in gross violation of the relevant Regulation of the respondents 1 and 2 - Company. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Further, he submitted that, the respondents 1 and 2 have shown undue interest in favour of respondents 3 to 5 in payment of death benefits to them though they are not entitled to the same. Therefore, it is his case that, the said pensionary benefits already paid to respondents 3 to 5 is required to be returned to petitioner, being the first and legally wedded wife of deceased employee of respondents - Company, Sri. G.R. Rangappa. Further, he submitted that, in spite of submitting the application for providing an appointment on compassionate grounds on account of the death of the deceased husband of the petitioner either to petitioner or her nominee, the same is neither considered nor disposed of nor the legal notice issued through the counsel vide Annexure E dated 19th October 2000 is considered by respondents - Company, resulting in clear violation of the relevant Regulations of the Company regarding appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, in view of inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in not disbursing the entire pensionary benefit to petitioner alone and not providing her or her nominee with suitable employment on compassionate grounds, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned Official Memorandum dated 4th December 1999 vide Annexure A stating that, the said official Memorandum has been passed by the competent authority of the respondents - Company in strict compliance of the relevant Regulations of the Company and also in the light of the direction issued by this Court in the Miscellaneous First Appeal as well as the order passed by this Court in the Review Petition. To substantiate the said submission, she has taken me through the relevant Regulation which is applicable to the facts of the case on hand and submitted that, the specific ground taken by petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the family pension has not been settled as per Regulation 221(b) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations. The said ground taken by petitioner cannot be sustained and the same is misconceived in nature for the reason that, the relevant Regulation applicable in the instant case as per the direction issued by this Court regarding settlement of family pension is not Regulation 221(b) of Employees' Service Regulation as contended by petitioner, but the appropriate relevant Regulation to the facts of present case is Regulation 221(b)(7) of Section F Chapter IX. As per Chapter IX Section F Regulation 221(b)(7), the first wife as well as the children through the second wife are entitled to equal share of pensionary benefits. Therefore, the said Regulation has been strictly adhered to by respondents and accordingly, the same has been extended and paid to the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5. She further submitted that, petitioner after accepting the said share of pensionary benefits, after lapse of nearly two years, has come up before this Court and presented the instant writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of delay and latches.
6. Finally, so far as the prayer for providing appointment on compassionate grounds either to petitioner or to her nominee is concerned, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, the said prayer is not maintainable for the reason that, petitioner has sought for employment for her brother's daughter one Prabavathi and as per Notification dated 17th April 1997, regulating the appointment on compassionate grounds, there is no provision for providing employment to the brother's daughter or son. Therefore, she submitted that, the instant writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
7. After careful perusal of the entire material available on record, threadbare, including the order passed by the respondents 1 and 2 vide Annexure A, the application filed by petitioner vide Annexure B for appointment on compassionate grounds, the legal notice issued dated 19th October 2000, the grounds urged by petitioner and the statement of objections filed by respondents 1 and 2, it emerges that, the respondents 1 and 2 have not committed any error or material irregularity in passing the impugned order at Annexure A. It is significant to note that, petitioner had earlier filed the MFA No. 1639/1993 and the said appeal had come up for consideration before this Court on 20th June 1996. The appeal filed by petitioner was disposed of by this Court by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 70/1988 dated 16th August 1993, holding that, petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 are entitled to equal share namely one fifth share (1/5th) and directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 accordingly.
8. After the disposal of the said MFA, petitioner filed a review petition in R.P. No. 539/1998 for review of the order made in the aforesaid M.F.A. The said Review Petition was also disposed of on 15th February 1999, with a direction to settle the pensionary benefits of the legal heirs of deceased employee - Sri. G.R. Rangappa as per the relevant Regulation of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations. After careful perusal of the Regulations of the respondents -Company, the relevant Regulation applicable to the case on hand is not Regulation 221(b) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations but, the relevant Regulation applicable to the facts of the case on hand is, Regulation 221(b)(7) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulation. The said Regulation clearly states that, in case of an employee having more than one wife, the family pension shall be divided among them equally and the share in respect of each wife shall be paid to her and if she is not alive, it shall be paid to her minor children. In the case on hand, at present, this Court is concerned with the family pension and other retirement benefits payable to the legal heir of deceased employee, which are governed by the relevant Regulation of the respondents - Company. However, it is not disputed before this Court that, if the legal position as aforesaid is correct, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondents. It is pertinent to note here itself that, as per the then existing Regulations of the respondents 1 and 2 - Company, as referred above, and as per the direction issued by this Court dated 15th February 1999 in Review Petition No. 539/1998 in M.F.A. No. 1639/1993, the respondents 1 and 2 have rightly considered the case of petitioner and disbursed the same to petitioner and respondents 3 to 5. Therefore, I do not find any error or legality as such committed by respondents 1 and 2 nor I find any good grounds to interfere in the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2.
9. So far as the second prayer sought for by petitioner for appointment of her brother's daughter on compassionate grounds on account of the death of the deceased husband of the petitioner is concerned, the said prayer cannot be considered as the same is not permissible under the relevant Regulations/Notification dated 17th April 1997 of the respondents - Company as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 in the statement of objections filed by them. It is specifically pointed out that, there is no provision to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to brother's son or daughter. After careful perusal of the Regulations and the Notification dated 17th April 1997 regulating appointment on compassionate grounds, there is no such provision to grant compassionate appointment to brother's son or brother's daughter. Only the son, unmarried daughter and widow of the deceased employee, who are wholly dependent upon him are entitled for compassionate appointment. Further, the respondents have specifically stated that, the brother of the petitioner was neither dependent on the deceased employee nor is a legal heir of petitioner. Therefore, the claim made by petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to the daughter of the brother of the petitioner on account of the death of her deceased husband is unsustainable and I do not find any good grounds to consider the said relief sought in the writ petition.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.