Karnataka High Court
Smt. Karuna Sen vs The Union Of India on 10 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45507
WP No. 33267 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 33267 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. KARUNA SEN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
701, 8TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN,
VIJAYANAGAR 1ST STAGE,
MYSURU-570 017.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. PARVATHY R. NAIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
AASEEFA
PARVEEN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH BLOCK,
KARNATAKA
NEW DELHI-110 011.
2. THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE
ACCOUNTS (PENSION)
DRAUPADI GHAT
ALLAHABAD
UTTAR PRADESH- 211 014.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45507
WP No. 33267 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. NAVAL PENSION OFFICE (NAVPEN)
C/O INS TANAJI,
SION-TROMBAY ROAD
MANKHURD,
MUMBAI-400 088.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.C.CHENGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE RULE 84
OF THE INDIAN NAVY REGULATION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45507
WP No. 33267 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following prayer:
(a) DECLARE Rule 84 of The Indian Navy Regulation as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of The Constitution of India.
(b) ISSUE a writ of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned letter dated No.PEN/600/Misc dated
02.09.2024 Naval Pension Office at Annexure- L directing the Respondent to recover the alleged excess pension paid to the Petitioner.
(c) ISSUE a writ of MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to pay the Petitioner the family pension applicable to that of the rank of Chief Petty Officer.
(d) PASS any other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice and equity.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not press prayer A.
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows:
The husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Seaman-II in the Indian Navy on 16.10.1970. The -4- NC: 2025:KHC:45507 WP No. 33267 of 2024 HC-KAR husband of the petitioner passed away on 11.09.1999 leaving behind the petitioner as his legal representative. The petitioner submitted the representation to the respondents for settlement of family pension. However, the said representation was rejected by the respondents and the letter dated 02.09.2024 was issued to recover the alleged excess pension paid to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner served in Indian Navy for more than 22 years and retired from service. He died on 11.09.1999 leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. After the demise of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents, requesting for the reason for decreasing the pension be clarified to the individual. Further the pension be reverted -5- NC: 2025:KHC:45507 WP No. 33267 of 2024 HC-KAR to the rank of CPO rank if it was an oversight/unintentional error. The respondents passed an order dated 02.09.2024 vide Annexure-L. The petitioner aggrieved by annexure-L filed this writ petition. She submits that the respondents have committed an error in decreasing the pension and hence, on these grounds she prays to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order passed by the respondents needs to be reconsidered by the respondents and hence, he prays to quash Annexure-L and direct the respondents to reconsider the representation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. He submitted that there is a defect in the impugned order. Hence, he prays to dispose of the writ petition.
7. I have perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:45507 WP No. 33267 of 2024 HC-KAR
8. It is an undisputed fact that the husband of the petitioner served in Indian Navy for more than 22 years and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and he died leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. The respondents passed an order dated 02.09.2024, decreasing the family pension of the petitioner from CPO to PO rank of the husband of the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner served as CPO for less than 10 months and Para 16 of the impugned order reads as follows:
"16. If she was getting OFP 23,051/-, than Bank/PDA was giving pension in excess, even considering for CPO (Rs.21,121/-) rank. Whereas Rs.18,868/- is the correct OROP II rate for PO. The excess pension if received may be recovered by Bank/PDA when noticed."
9. The respondents ignored the position of 10 months Rule which has been repeatedly clarified by the Armed Forces Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal held that-
"imposition of the Rule of 10-months service in the rank last held is an 'impediment', and waived the Rule in terms -7- NC: 2025:KHC:45507 WP No. 33267 of 2024 HC-KAR of the above Government Policy decision taken in consultation with the CGDA, with PCDA(P) as an addressee." The respondents without considering the Rule i.e. 10-month Rule has passed an impugned order. Even the learned counsel for the respondents fairly considered that there is an error in the impugned order.
10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
b) The impugned letter at Annexure-L
dated 02.09.2024 passed by the
respondents is hereby quashed.
c) Respondents are directed to pay the
petitioner, family pension applicable to that of the rank of Chief Petty Officer within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:45507 WP No. 33267 of 2024 HC-KAR
d) Respondents are directed to refund the amount which has been already deducted to the petitioner.
Pending IA's, if any, disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE NS CT:TSM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46