- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54013 WP No. 34780 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO.34780 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHIVAMANI W/O LATE D. VIKRAMAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT ADITHYA NILAYA, REDDY'S BUILDING, MALLIKARJUNA BADAVANE, AMARAVATHI VILLAGE, HARIHAR, DAVANAGERE DIST.577 601. 2. MADHU KUMAR V, S/O LATE D. VIKRAMAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT ADITHYA NILAYA, REDDY'S BUILDING, MALLIKARJUNA BADAVANE, AMARAVATHI VILLAGE, HARIHAR, DAVANAGERE DIST.577 601. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54013 WP No. 34780 of 2024 AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NO.256/A, RAISINA ROAD, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI - 110 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, CO-ORDINATION DEPARTMENT, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. B. TOTAD., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION BY WAY OF MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 22.08.2016 AND 12.11.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, B AND C RESPECTIVELY AND ETC THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54013 WP No. 34780 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation made by the petitioners dated 22.08.2016 and 12.11.2024 vide Annexures A, B and C respectively, and also sought for quashing the communication dated 28.02.2025, issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-H. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the husband of petitioner No.1, and the father of petitioner No.2 namely, D. Vikraman Nair joined the services of respondent No.2 on 30.05.1979 as Sub-Khalasi. It is contended that petitioner No.1 married to D. Vikraman Nair on 17.11.1986 and out of the wedlock, they have five children. The said Vikraman Nair died leaving behind the petitioners and others. After the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54013 WP No. 34780 of 2024 demise of the employee, the petitioners have submitted an application for compassionate appointment. Meanwhile, one Smt. C. Nalini filed a suit in O.S.No.5114 of 2010 claiming that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased D.Vikraman Nair. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 21.09.2011. The petitioners challenged the ex parte decree in Misc.petition No.96/2017. The said miscellaneous petition came to be allowed and the ex parte judgment was set aside. Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement stating that the suit in O.S.No.5114 of 2010 is pending. Therefore, they cannot consider the representations of the petitioners. The communication came to be issued by respondent No.2 on 28.02.2025, wherein it is stated that the issue regarding status of the legal wife is pending in O.S.No.5114 of 2010 and also in the instant writ petition and hence prayer to consider the representations cannot be processed further at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54013 WP No. 34780 of 2024 present. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for amendment to the memorandum of writ petition seeking the prayer for writ of certiorari quashing Annexure-H dated 28.02.2025. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the deceased D. Vikraman Nair. He died leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. He submits that one C. Nalini filed a suit in O.S.No.5114 of 2010 against the petitioners. The said suit was decreed ex parte. He submits that the petitioners filed a miscellaneous petition in Misc. Petition No.96/2017. The said miscellaneous petition came to be allowed, and ex parte judgment and decree was set aside, and the suit was restored and he submits that subsequently - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54013 WP No. 34780 of 2024 during the pendency of this writ petition, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff i.e., C. Nalini to present it before the jurisdictional Family Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order was passed on 27.02.2025 and till today it is submitted that C.Nalini has not presented the plaint before the Family Court. Hence, prays to set aside Annexure-H and directed respondent No.1 to reconsider the representations submitted by the petitioners. Accordingly, prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that in the suit filed by C.Nalini in O.S.No.5118 of 2010, the trial court has returned the plaint to present it before the jurisdictional court and in view of the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents could not consider the representations submitted by the petitioners. He submits that in view of the order passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.5114 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54013 WP No. 34780 of 2024 of 2010, respondent Nos.1 and 2 will consider the representations submitted by the petitioners vide Annexures A, B and C respectively. Hence, prays for disposal of the writ petition. 7. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is an undisputed fact that D. Vikraman Nair was the employee of the respondents. He passed away while he was in service. There is a dispute regarding the status of the wife, whether petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife or one C. Nalini, who had filed a suit in OS No. 5114 of 2010 seeking relief of a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Vikraman Nair. After the demise of Vikraman Nair, the petitioners have submitted representations vide Annexures A, B and C seeking an appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents have not passed any order on the said representations vide Annexures A, B and C. During - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54013 WP No. 34780 of 2024 the pendency of the suit, the respondents have issued an impugned endorsement vide Annexure-H, stating that in view of the pendency of the suit in OS No. 5114 of 2010, and also the pendency of the instant writ petition, they could not process the representations. 9. The petitioner has produced the order sheet of OS No. 5114 of 2010, wherein the Civil Court has passed an order on 27.02.2025 holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff before the Civil Court is not maintainable as the dispute involved in the suit is pertaining to the matrimonial nature and the Family Court has got a jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties to the suit, and returned the plaint to present it before the jurisdictional Family Court. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that C.Nalini has not presented the plaint before the jurisdictional Family Court. His submission is placed on record. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54013 WP No. 34780 of 2024 11. In view of disposal of the suit in OS No. 5114 of 2010, the matter requires reconsideration by the respondents. 12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned communication dated 28.02.2025 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-H is hereby quashed. iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representations vide Annexures A, B and C respectively. iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioners as well as to C. Nalini, and after hearing both the parties, pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39