- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13994 WP No. 101909 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101909 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. RAJLAKSHMI W/O. LATE UMESH NADKARNI @ BHARATI CHATANNAVAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE MAKER, R/O: PLOT 16, KESHAV NAGAR, BARAKOTRI ROAD, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCAION, VIDHAN SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009, BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, KITTEL SCIENCE COLLEGE, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO. KA.SHI.E.191/TBS/DA.VI-1/98-99 DATED 16.7.2016 HERETO PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND THE ENDORSEMENT NO. KA.SHI.E.191/TBS/DA.VI-1/98-99 DATED 08.12.2016 HERETO PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS FOR NOMINATING THE PETITIONER AS A NOMINEE OF HER LATE HUSBAND UMESH NARAYAN Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13994 WP No. 101909 of 2025 NADKARNI IN THE FAMILY PENSION RECORD IN ORDER TO RECEIVE DUE PENSION AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: i. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement No.ka.shi.e.191/tbs/da.vi-1/98-99 dated 16.07.2016 hereto produced and marked as Annexure-A & the endorsement No.ka.shi.e.191/tbs/da.vi-1/98-99 dated 08.12.2016 hereto produced and marked as Annexure-B. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for nominating the petitioner as a nominee of her late husband Umesh Narayan Nadkarni in the family pension record in order to receive due pension. iii. Any other writ which this Honourable Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner by allowing this writ petition with the cost throughout in the ends of justice and equity. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.G.Kulkarni for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil for the respondent-State. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13994 WP No. 101909 of 2025 3. The petitioner is said to be the second wife of one Umesh Narayan Nadkarni, who marries the petitioner after the death of his first wife on 21.09.2015. The said Umesh Narayan Nadkarni also dies on 18.04.2024. The petitioner for the purpose of availing family pension, what was to be submitted was a nomination form. The nomination form comes to be presented beyond the period of 3 months as stipulated under Rule 15(1) of the Karnataka Government Servant (Family Pension) Rules, 2002. The nomination comes to be rejected on the score that it is filed after the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 15 of the Rules 2002. The issue need not detain this Court for longer delve deep into the matter. The Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.19438/2016 & 36521/2016, has held as follows: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Government Advocate. 2. The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the impugned order, whereby the 2nd respondent-Director of Collegiate Education was pleased to reject the request of the 1st petitioner to include the name the 2nd petitioner i.e., Smt. Gayathri in the family pension record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13994 WP No. 101909 of 2025 3. It is the case of the petitioners that after the demise of Dr. A. Jayalaxmi i.e., first wife of the 1st petitioner on 30.05.2014 and after he attained the age of superannuation on 01.09.2006, the 1st petitioner has entered into wedlock with the 2nd petitioner-Smt. Gayathri on 09.06.2009. Thereafter, he made an application on 10.06.2013 nominating his wife Smt. Gayathri i.e., the 2nd petitioner herein as his nominee in the family pension record. The 2nd respondent after consideration of the representation, was pleased to reject the same on the premise that to nominate the 2nd petitioner in the family pension record, intimation about the marriage ought to be made within 3 months of marriage or re-marriage as contemplated under the provisions of Rule 15(1) of the Karnataka Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for short]. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind. He would submit that the impugned order is on account of an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of Rule 15(1) of the Rules. 5. The provisions of Rule 15(1) of the Rules reads as follows: “As and when a pensioner marries or remarries after retirement he shall intimate the event within three months in Form F to the Head of the Office who processed his pension papers at the time of retirement. He shall also furnish along with his application an attested copy of the marriage certificate along with three copies of the passport size joint photograph with the spouse duly attested in respect of his post-retirement marriage. The sanction of family pension in cases of marriage after retirement is subject to above rules.” 6. From a reading of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the time stipulated is not an embargo for considering the application made beyond stipulated period of 3 months. The provision does not debar or prohibit filing of the application beyond the period of 3 months. The provision merely stipulates that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13994 WP No. 101909 of 2025 the intimation about marriage or re-marriage of a government servant after retirement ought to be within 3 months and it does not detail the consequences of any delay in intimation. 7. It is an undisputed fact that the person who superannuated on attaining the age of 60 will be accepted and treated as a senior citizen. A senior citizen cannot be expected to act with promptitude or alacrity. In the instant case, the 1st petitioner has entered into a wedlock for the second time after superannuation that too after 4 years after the date of superannuation. The impugned order does not dispute the factum of re- marriage or the eligibility of the 2nd petitioner or the entitlement of the 2nd petitioner in getting the family pension. Mere delay in intimating the factum of remarriage cannot be a ground to deny the right that is otherwise vested with the 1st petitioner to make his second wife as the nominee in the family pension record. It is also not in dispute that the first wife of the 1st petitioner has passed away on 30.05.2014. That apart, this Court is unable to observe any other provision in the Rules which would otherwise disentitle the 2nd petitioner to claim the benefit of family pension. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the stipulation of 3 [three] months period is directory and it is not mandatory for 6 which otherwise would act as a prohibition for consideration of the application. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order requires to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application for nominating the 2nd petitioner as the nominee of the 1st petitioner in the family pension record afresh in the light of the observations made herein above. Such consideration shall be expedited within an outer limit of 3 [three] months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13994 WP No. 101909 of 2025 4. The Co-ordinate Bench holds that the mandate of 3 months as depicted under Rule 15(1) of the Rules 2002 is only directory and not mandatory. Since the law is already declared by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which the respondents are not in a position to distinguish or dispute the same, the petition deserves to succeed. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, following: ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. ii. The endorsement dated 16.07.2016 & 08.12.2016 stands quashed. iii. Mandamus issues to the respondents to nominate the petitioner as a nominee of her late husband Umesh Narayan Nadkarni and take further action in accordance with law qua the retirement benefits. iv. The action shall be taken within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61