- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13675-DB WP No. 105075 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT PETITION NO.105075 OF 2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PREMA, W/O BHUPALAPPA NEMANNAVAR, AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O YATTINAHALLI, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI 581205. 2. SMT. SHOBHA, W/O SANTOSH SHETTEPPANAVAR, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O HUNUGUND, TQ. MUNDGOD, DIST. KARWAR, NOW AT YATTINAHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI 581205. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE) VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13675-DB WP No. 105075 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, TO EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE ACCOUNT GENERAL IN KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, HAVERI 581205. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, SHIGGOAN, HAVERI 581205. 5. SMT. SUDHA, W/O ALLEGED NEMANNAVAR, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O YETTINHALLI, POST. HOSUR, TQ. SHIGGAON, DIST. HAVERI 581205. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. N.P. VIVEK MEHATA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY KAT BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.314/2007 DATED 14/07/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-R IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13675-DB WP No. 105075 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioners, who were not parties before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), in Application No.314/2007, are before this Court in this writ petition questioning the order dated 14.07.2022 passed in the said application whereunder the application of respondent No.5 seeking direction to the respondents to sanction and release the service benefits of her late husband is allowed with a direction to release the death benefits of the deceased government servant. 2. Heard Sri. Venkatesh M.Kharvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. G.K.Hiregoudar, learned Principal Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5, and Sri N.P.Vivek Mehta, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel Sri. Venkatesh M.Kharvi would submit that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of late Bhupalappa - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13675-DB WP No. 105075 of 2023 Nemannavar who was working as a Headmaster in a Government Higher Primary School and who died on 06.07.2005 while in service. It is submitted that respondent No.5 filed an application before the Tribunal in Application No.314/2007 without making the petitioners as parties to the said application with a prayer to sanction and release the service benefits of her deceased husband. Learned counsel would submit that the suit filed by the petitioners in O.S. No.102/2007 is pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Shiggaon wherein the petitioners have prayed that the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of the deceased Bhupalappa and for other consequential reliefs. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal could not have directed the official respondents to release the service benefits in favour of respondent No.5 when there is a dispute pending with regard to the status of petitioner No.1 as well as respondent No.5. 4. Per Contra, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that respondent No.5 is nominated under Rule 302 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules to receive - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13675-DB WP No. 105075 of 2023 retrial benefits and family pension and in terms of the order of the Tribunal as well as the nomination in favour of respondent No.5, the official respondents have no other option but to settle pensionary benefits in favour of respondent No.5. 5. Learned counsel Sri. N.P.Vivek Mehta appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 would invite our attention to the nomination made under Rule 302 of the KCSRs as well as the nomination of respondent No.5 in LIC policies of late Sri. Bhupalappa. Thus, he would submit that there is no illegality or error in the order passed by the Tribunal and he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference. 7. The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: Admittedly, the petitioners have to establish their status as wife and daughter of late Sri. Bhupalappa Nemannavar who - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13675-DB WP No. 105075 of 2023 was working as a Head Master and died while in service on 06.07.2005. Admittedly, the suit in O.S. NO.102/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Shiggaon is pending consideration in that regard. Moreover, late Sri. Bhupalappa Nemannavar had nominated respondent No.5 under Rule 302 of KCSRs to receive the retirement benefits. The writ papers would also indicate that the deceased government servant had nominated respondent No.5 to receive certain other benefits under the LIC policy and the same is not in dispute. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. However, the petitioners (plaintiffs in O.S. No.102/2007) on establishing their status as wife and daughter of late Sri. Bhupalappa Nemannavar or as the case may be and depending on the status to be declared by the Civil Court, it is open for them to claim such share in the service benefits from respondent No.5, in accordance with succession law. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiprasen Gupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta and Others1 at paragraph 17 has observed 1 (2009)10 SCC 680 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13675-DB WP No. 105075 of 2023 that the nominee is entitled to receive the insurance amount which was the subject matter in the said case, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the law of succession. Further, it is observed that in view of the clear legal position, the amount under any head can be received by the nominee but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them. 8. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory application also stand disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE KMS, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38