Union Of India vs Smt Seethamma on 4 June, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Union Of India vs Smt Seethamma on 4 June, 2012

Bench: K.L. Manjunath

                                 1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

           DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012
                                                                    R
                             PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH

                               AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO

                WRIT APPEAL NO.300 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

1. UNION OF INDIA
   DEPARTMENT OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH
   NEW UDYOG BHAVAN,
   NEW DELHI

2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL
   KARNATAKA CIRCLE
   BANGALORE - 560 001
   BANGALORE DISTRICT.                               ...Appellants

              (By Shri S. Prakash Shetty, Advocate)

AND:

SMT. SEETHAMMA
W/O LATE P.N. RAMA IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS
RESIDING AT
C/O SMT. P.R. VIJAYALAKSHMI
NO.P-201, 7TH MAIN ROAD
OLD TOWNSHIP, HAL
BANGALORE - 560 017                                  ...Respondent

            (By Shri Shyam Koundinya A.S., Advocate)

       This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
                               2




High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in writ
Petition No.43057 of 2004 dated 05.01.2007.

     This appeal coming on for final hearing, this day, K.L.
Manjunath J, delivered the following:

                      JUDGMENT

The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.43057 of 2004 dated 5th January 2007, is questioned in this appeal.

2. The facts of the case is that the respondent filed the writ petition to settle the family pension and retirement benefits payable to her on account of the service rendered by her husband, late P.N. Rama Iyengar. It was her case that her husband, P.N. Rama Iyengar was an employee of the Postal department. He served as Post Master at Kolar and retired from service on 6th May 1960. Since he was suffering from paralytic stroke, he died on 5th July 1974. As her husband was suffering from paralytic stroke, he could not claim the terminal benefits and since the respondent had no particulars of service records of her husband, she also could not take steps immediately. In the circumstance, she had made representation dated 7th September 2003 for grant of family pension. On the 3 ground that her case has not been considered, she filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, considering her age and background, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to consider her case for payment of family pension looking into the service records of her husband, late P.N. Rama Iyengar. This judgment is called into question in this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Prakash Shetty, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has made twofold submissions. According to him, firstly, the writ petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable as she should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal; and secondly, the respondent has failed to produce the legal heirship certificate.

4. We are unable to accept both the contentions of the learned counsel, for the following reasons:

Before the learned Single Judge, the same question was raised. Considering the age of the petitioner and her pathetic condition, the learned Single Judge has come to 4 the conclusion that no purpose would be served in directing the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, because the Tribunal would also direct the appellant herein to consider her case for grant of pensionary benefits based on the service records of her husband. Since she was aged about 88 years as on the date of filing the petition, and as of now she might have crossed 94 years, it would be unfair for this Court to direct the respondent to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to draw the meagre family pension, which she is entitled to in the eye of law as widow of late P.N. Rama Iyengar. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we decline to accept the argument of Mr. Prakash Shetty.

5. Insofar as the second condition of Sri Prakash Shetty is concerned, admittedly, the respondent has produced the legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, which is a valid document. To draw the family pension, no succession certificate is required. In addition to that her name would be found in the service records of late P.N. Rama Iyengar. Unfortunately, the 5 service records have not been looked into before filing this appeal.

6. In the circumstance, we do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge, which calls for interference in an intra-court appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Two weeks' time is granted to comply with the directions of the learned Single Judge.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE lnn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court