Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31412 (KAR)

SHRI GOVINDARAJU v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/20270/2023 · 2025-04-24

R Nataraj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17048 WP No. 20270 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 20270 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.37, I CROSS, GANGOTHRI LAYOUT, NEAR MARUTHI TEMPLE, MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 6TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, SACHIVALAYA-II BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE MYSURU UNIVERSITY REP BY ITS REGISTRAR, CRAFED BHAWAN, PO BOX NO.406 MYSURU-570005 MYSURU DISTRICT. 3. THE FINANCE OFFICER MYSURU UNIVERSITY, CRAFED BHAWAN, PO BOX NO.406 MYSURU-570005 MYSURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17048 WP No. 20270 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS (a) NO.AaSha.5/Nivruthi/22/7257/2020-2021 DATED 5.5.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F; (b) NO.AaSha.5/Nivruthi/GSLI/06/2005-2006 DATED 22.04.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; (c) NO.AaSha.5/ Nivruthi/GSLI/06/2005-06 DATED 15.09.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-L ALL ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.ED/2/UMV/2022 DATED 21.07.2023 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the orders dated 05.05.2021, 22.04.2022, 15.09.2022 and 21.07.2023. He has also sought for a direction to the respondent No.1 to release the commuted value of pension of his wife whose voluntary retirement was accepted with effect from 01.01.2020 together with pension from 01.01.2020 to 23.04.2020. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that his wife who was working as an Assistant Professor (Sanskrit) in the respondent No.2 submitted voluntary retirement on 27.12.2019. The syndicate of the respondent No.2 accepted the voluntary retirement on 17.01.2020 and was permitted to get herself - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17048 WP No. 20270 of 2023 relieved on 27.12.2019. The syndicate also directed release of retirement benefits that she was entitled to, after deducting dues if any. Later, the wife of the petitioner died on 23.04.2020 before she could submit any application in Form 1-B for commutation of pension. Therefore, the petitioner being the legal heir submitted a representation requesting the respondent No.3 to release retirement benefits and family pension. Later, the respondent No.3 by an order dated 10.11.2020, ordered for release of DCRG and family pension without ordering release of pension that the wife of the petitioner was entitled to from 01.01.2020 to 23.04.2020 and the commuted value of pension. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation stating that he would be entitled to commuted value of pension in terms of Rule 376(3) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules (for short 'KCSR'). The respondent No.3 vide communication dated 05.05.2021 rejected the claim of the petitioner for release of commuted value of pension on the ground that his wife had not submitted any application in Form 1-B seeking commuted value of pension and therefore, the same cannot be released. (ii) The petitioner then approached the respondent No.1 requesting to intervene in the matter, as he would be - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17048 WP No. 20270 of 2023 entitled for commuted value of pension as per Rule 376(3) and Rule 376(11) of KCSR. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 directed the respondent No.2 to look into the matter in the light of the aforesaid rules. (iii) Despite the above, there was no response from the respondent No.2 which prompted the petitioner to submit another representation dated 17.02.2022. In response, the respondent No.3 issued an endorsement rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is not entitled to commuted value of pension, as his wife had not submitted any application for commuting pension. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 01.06.2022 bringing to the notice of the respondent No.3 the provisions relating to release of commuted value of pension in respect of a retired Government servant who had not opted for commuting the pension as stipulated under Rules 376(3) and 376(11) of KCSR. The respondent No.1 directed the respondent No.2 to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the wife of the petitioner had not submitted any application in Form 1-B and therefore, the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit. Similar endorsement was issued by the respondent No.3 on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17048 WP No. 20270 of 2023 15.09.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned communication issued by the respondent No.1 and the order passed by the respondent No.3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 376 of KCSR relates to commutation of pension of a Government servant who retires from service. He contends that while Rule 376(2) of KCSR mandates that every Government servant shall, give particulars of pension in Form 1-B and declare his or her intention for commutation of pension not exceeding one-third thereof from the date from which pension commences, Rule 376(3) of KCSR deals with cases where the Government servant does not make any declaration for commutation of pension. He contends that under Rule 376(5) of KCSR once a Government servant has declared his intention to forego his commutation, he shall not be entitled to seek commutation thereafter. He contends that under Rule 376(11) of KCSR, in case of a retired Government servant, who has become entitled to the commutation of pension and who dies before receipt of the commuted value, the amount shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased. He contends that reading of the above provisions makes it more than apparent that in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17048 WP No. 20270 of 2023 respect of a Government servant, who had retired from service and who had not opted for commutation, the Accountant General is bound to presume that the retired Government servant has opted for maximum commutation permissible according to the rules and act accordingly. He therefore contends that Rule 376(3) of KCSR is applicable to the case on hand and the respondent No.3 is bound to process the papers for commutation of pension of the wife of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the commutation of pension can be granted to a person who submits an application in Form 1-B and not to any other person. He submits that the application in Form 1-B must have been filed at the time of accepting the request of voluntary retirement and since the same is not done, the petitioner cannot renew his request for commuted value of pension after his wife died. He also contends that there is no provision in KCSR for enabling the legal representatives of the deceased Government servant to make an application for commuting the pension. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17048 WP No. 20270 of 2023 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate also supports the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and submits that the impugned endorsement issued is in accordance with KCSR Rules. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. 7. The wife of the petitioner had submitted her application for voluntary retirement on 27.12.2019 and the same was accepted on 17.01.2020. She was permitted to be relieved on 27.12.2019. The wife of the petitioner was entitled to seek commutation of her pension by filing an appropriate application in Form 1-B. However, she did not file any application in Form 1-B. She later died on 23.04.2020. The respondent No.3 ordered for release of DCRG and family pension on 10.11.2020 and did not pass any orders for releasing the pension. The petitioner therefore submitted an application seeking for commuted value of pension in accordance with Rule 376(3) and (11) of KCSR. For the sake of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17048 WP No. 20270 of 2023 convenience, Rule 376(1) to (5) and (11) of KCSR is extracted below: "376.(1) The rules in this Chapter shall apply to all civil pensions paid by the Government of Karnataka to persons in respect of whose pensions, the Government of Karnataka is competent to make rules under the Karnataka Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 to 1990). (2) Every Government servant shall, while giving particulars of pension in Form 1-B declare his intention or otherwise of commutation of pension not exceeding one-third thereof from the date from which pension commences. (3) In cases where application for pension are not accompanied by such a declaration for commutation of pension Accountant General will presume that the retired Government servant has opted the maximum commutation permissible according to rules and act accordingly. (4) The declaration given shall be final and shall not be allowed to be changed thereafter. A retired Government servant who has declared his intention to commute a portion of pension less than 1/3rd also shall not be allowed any further commutation thereafter. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17048 WP No. 20270 of 2023 (5) A retired Government servant who has declared his intention to forego commutation shall not be entitled to seek commutation thereafter. (11) In case of a retired Government servant who has become entitled to the commutation of pension and who dies before receipt of the commuted value, the amount shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased." 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 376 of KCSR caters to three different situations namely, (i) when a Government servant seeks for commutation of pension; (ii) when he does not seek for commutation of pension; (iii) when he opts to forego commutation. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner's wife did not seek commutation of pension, consequently, the case was covered under Rule 376(3) of KCSR and therefore, the Accountant General was bound to treat that an application for commutation was filed and maximum commutation permissible under the rules ought to have been granted. The assumption of the respondent No.3 that commutation of pension cannot be granted, unless sought for by the Government servant, is contrary to Rule 376(3) of KCSR. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17048 WP No. 20270 of 2023 10. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement dated 05.05.2021 issued by the respondent No.3 as well as the trail of communication between the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 which are impugned in these writ petitions are quashed. The respondent No.3 is directed to process the papers of the petitioner's wife for commutation of pension as provided under Rule 376(3) of KCSR, in which event, the Accountant General shall also take appropriate steps for granting the commuted value of pension to the petitioner. 11. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38