- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30793 WP No. 19254 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19254 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: B R MOHINI AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS W/O SRI B D RUDRAYYA R/AT SF 01 BADAMI BANASHANKARI RESIDENCY 5TH MAIN 2ND CROSS APPAIAHSWAMY LAYOUT UTTARAHALLI-560 061 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIRAM ADIGA., ADVOCATE) AND: UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (FINANCE DIVISION) PRINCIPLE CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS AT DRAUPADI GHAT SARADAR BAJAR SARASWATHI VIHAR COLONY ASHOK NAGAR, PRAYAGRAJ UTTAR PRADESH 211001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.GIRISH KODAGI., ADVOCATE[ABSENT]) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE REPLY LETTER GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING NO.LC/X/WP-NIL-2025/HC/KA/A- M/677DATED 24.06.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE K. AND ETC. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30793 WP No. 19254 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: “(a) ………….. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus by directing the respondent to consider the letter dated 10.06.2025 submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure-J. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus by directing the respondent to delete the name of “Mohini alias Lalitha” by way of cancellation and give a proper direction to add the petitioner name “B R Mohini” in the Pension Payment Order bearing No.S/R/MODP /032411/2001 vide Annexure-D and (d) Issue a direction to the respondent to pass all the pending pension amount in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law within appropriate timely actions.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30793 WP No. 19254 of 2025 2. The petitioner claims to be the widow of one B.D.Rudrayya, who was a soldier in the Indian Army. He was discharged from service on compassionate grounds, on his own request and later, he died on 16.04.2007. The respondent addressed a communication to the Records office, Pioneer Corps, Bangalore regarding a representation received from the Canara Bank, Madikeri which highlighted that the case involved claims of the children of second wife of B.D.Rudrayya, who had approached through their advocate, stating that their mother was not receiving any family pension. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA) directed the Records Office to conduct thorough investigation in the matter. Thereafter, the Mangalore Office conducted investigation and collected relevant documents from the petitioner. However, its attempts to reach out Smt. B.R.Lalitha, did not evoke any response from her. On the evidence adduced by the petitioner, the Mangalore office recommended granting family pension in favour of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30793 WP No. 19254 of 2025 Smt.B.R.Mohini, the petitioner herein. The Records office acknowledged in its letter dated 10.11.2021 (Annexure-C) that the deceased had officially declared Smt.B.R.Mohini, the petitioner herein, as his nominee for his estate and family pension. It is also confirmed that the petitioner herein was the first wife and therefore she was eligible person for receiving the family pension. Accordingly, documents were forwarded to the PCDA, requesting cancellation of the existing Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued in the name of Mohini @ Lalitha and issuance of fresh PPO in the name of the petitioner. As per the records office, it was declared that the petitioner was the legal representative of the deceased and she was the only person entitled to get pension. Thereafter, again, the petitioner requested the respondent to cancel the exiting PPO and issue a fresh PPO in her name. The PCDA returned the request of the petitioner stating that PPO cancellation could only be processed in cases of death, divorce, based on the merits of the case. The petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30793 WP No. 19254 of 2025 thereafter, submitted the claim along with all supporting documents to establish her entitlement for pension. However, PCDA on 18.12.2024 returned the case to the records office, Bangalore with certain observations. The petitioner claims that Smt.B.R.Lalitha, who claims to be the widow of the deceased did not come forward to show any document in support of her claim and therefore, seeks for a direction to respondent No.1 to pass necessary orders deleting the name of “Smt.Mohini @ Lalitha” in the PPO and to substitute the name with “Smt.B.R.Mohini”. Since the representation of the petitioner is not considered by the respondent, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.1450/2025. In the said writ petition, the respondent submitted that the issue whether the petitioner is the wife or Smt.B.R.Lalitha is the wife of the deceased cannot be looked into by the PCDA, it is for the petitioner to obtain appropriate declaration from a competent civil court. It is only then the respondent can take steps to effect necessary changes in the PPO. In view of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30793 WP No. 19254 of 2025 above, this Court, by order dated 28.03.2025 disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to approach the competent civil court to obtain about the status as the wife of Late B.D.Rudrayya. If the petitioner obtains a declaration, she is entitled to approach the respondent for effecting necessary changes in the PPO. It was also directed that if the petitioner obtains such a declaration and approaches the respondent, it shall forthwith take steps to substitute the name of the petitioner in the PPO. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the civil court by filing P & SC No.58/2025 in the Court of 43rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The Civil Court, by order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure-G) allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act and also issued the succession certificate in the name of the petitioner with respect to the pension benefit payable on the death of B.D.Rudrayya, who worked as Sepoy on payment of requisite court fee. After obtaining the succession - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30793 WP No. 19254 of 2025 certificate as per Annexure-H, the petitioner approached the Records Officer, Records, Pioneer Corps, vide Annexure-J. The Records Officer sent a communication to the petitioner vide Annexure-K requesting to approach the concerned records office for correction of the papers. The records office, vide Annexure-L dated 29.03.2025 issued a corrigendum stating that the claim for correction of name and updation of date of birth in respect of Smt.B.R.Mohini is forwarded along with CTC of sheet roll. The Record Officer sent a communication vide Annexures L and L1 stating that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of deceased B.D.Rudrayya and the claim for correction of the name was to be made in the PPO. Inspite of that, the first respondent has not substituted the name of the petitioner in the PPO. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Even when the matter was called on 05.08.2025, none appeared for the respondent. Therefore, to give one more opportunity, the matter is posted to today. Even today also, none appears for the respondent. This Court - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30793 WP No. 19254 of 2025 on earlier occasion has given a specific direction while disposing of W.P.No.1450/2025. The same is extracted below: “8. Hence, this writ petition is disposed off directing the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and obtain a declaration about her status as the wife of Sri late B.D.Rudrayya. If the petitioner obtains a declaration, she is entitled to approach the respondent No.1 for effecting necessary changes in the pension payment order. If the petitioner obtains such a declaration and approaches the respondent No.1, it shall forthwith take steps to substitute the name of the petitioner in the pension payment order.” 5. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained the succession certificate from the competent civil court. The record officer also recommended for substitution of the name of the petitioner. Inspite of that, the respondent has not taken steps to substitute the name of the petitioner in the PPO. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30793 WP No. 19254 of 2025 6. In view of the above, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is disposed of. (ii) The petitioner is permitted to give representation to the respondent, enclosing a copy of this order. (iii) The respondent is directed to take steps forthwith, to substitute the name of the petitioner in the PPO as expeditiously as possible, not later than four weeks from the date of the receipt of the representation submitted by the petitioner, along with this order. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42