1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.22974/2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. C RAMAKRISHNA S/O CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS ADVOCATE R/AT DOOR NO.2/6 NAYANDAHALLI MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560039. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWATH, SR. ADV. FOR SRI A NAGARAJAPPA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-56001. 2. THE DIRECTOR KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT 17TH FLOOR, DR. VISVESVARAIAH TOWER 2 DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT 17TH FLOOR, DR. VISVESVARAIAH TOWER DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK K.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KEMPANNA, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDERS OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 08.07.2024 IN APPLICATION NOS.590 AND 590/2021 MARKED AT ANNEXURE- F; B) DECLARE THAT THE RULE 38 OF THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SERVANTS (COMPULSORY LIFE INSURANCE) RULES 1958, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ULTRA-VIRUS, VOID-AB- INITIO AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 27.02.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND 3 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioner, an unsuccessful applicant before the Tribunal is before this Court questioning order dated 08.07.2024 in Application No.590 and 591/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to declare Rule 38 of Karnataka Government Servants (Compulsory Life Insurance) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘Rules, 1958’) as unconstitutional and to restrain the respondents from enforcing Rule 38 of 1958 Rules and also refusing to quash communication dated 27.11.2020 (Annexure- A14) informing the petitioner that compulsory insurance policy has been rendered void. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the father of one Sri.Shashikiran who 4 was appointed on compassionate grounds as First Division Assistant (FDA) vide order dated 26.08.2019 and died on 04.01.2020 by committing suicide. The son of the petitioner when joined service as FDA had obtained compulsory insurance policy under Rules 1958 on 03.10.2019. While obtaining the insurance policy, the son of the petitioner nominated the petitioner-father as nominee to the compulsory insurance policy bearing No.3172405. On the death of Government Servant, the petitioner’s father/nominee made a claim to the assured sum under the compulsory life insurance policy. However, the petitioner’s claim has been rejected in terms of Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 under communication dated 27.11.2020 (Annexure-A14). Questioning the said endorsement as well as questioning the constitutional validity of Rule 38 of Rules, 1958, the petitioner was before the Tribunal. The Tribunal under impugned 5 order rejected the application of the petitioner on two counts. First being that, the petitioner has no locus to question Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 and secondly, upholding Rule 38 of Rules, 1958. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as questioning Rule 38 of Rules, 1958, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagwath for Sri.A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Kempanna along with Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagwath for petitioner would submit that the Tribunal committed grave error in coming to the conclusion 6 that the petitioner has no locus to challenge Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 as the petitioner being the nominee and as the legal heir of the deceased Government servant, he is entitled to receive whatever benefit that is available on the death of a Government servant. Further, it is submitted that the benefits accrued on the death of a Government servant would be based on conditions of service which his family members would be entitled to receive under the relevant service rules. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no locus to question Rule 38 of Rules, 1958. 5. Insofar as Rule 38 of Rules, 1958, learned senior counsel would contend that the same is unconstitutional and ultra-vires to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Rule 23(b) of Rules, 1958. Learned senior counsel referring to Rule 23(b) of Rules, 1958 would submit that if the insured is reported to be dead, the sum 7 assured by the policy shall be paid in favour of the nominee registered subject to the production of a satisfactory proof of death. It is submitted that when Rule 23 of Rules, 1958 would not put any embargo, Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 cannot render the policy void by death of the insured by suicide. Learned senior counsel would submit that since there is conflict between Rule 23(b) and Rule 38 of Rules, 1958, Rule 38 is required to be declared as unconstitutional. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 would defeat the purpose and object of the compulsory life insurance and further submits that Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 ought to be read down to read it liberally keeping in mind the larger interest of the deceased family. Thus, learned senior counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition and to declare Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8 6. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Kempanna on the other hand would support the order passed by the Tribunal by contending that the purpose and object of compulsory life insurance is to provide financial security to the Government servant and his family, however, he submits that the same cannot be misutilized so as to defeat the purpose of insurance policy. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General referring to Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 would submit that the policy must be in force for at least one year to not render it void by death of insured by suicide. It is submitted that the son of the petitioner died within one year from the date of issuance of policy and in terms of Rule 38 of Rules, 1958, the policy issued to the petitioner’s son has been rendered void. Learned Additional Advocate General would also submit that it 9 is not in dispute that the son of the petitioner died by committing suicide and the postmortem report also indicates that the death is due to hanging, as such, the rejection of petitioner’s claim is proper in terms of Rule 38 of Rules, 1958. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to, Whether, as contended by the petitioner, Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 is unconstitutional and whether impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference? 9. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: 10 The petitioner’s son was appointed as FDA on compassionate grounds on 26.08.2019 and on his appointment the petitioner was issued with compulsory life insurance policy bearing No.3172405 under Rules, 1958 on 03.10.2019. It is not in dispute that the son of the petitioner died on 04.01.2020 by committing suicide within six months from the date of issuance of compulsory insurance policy. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased Government servant nominated the petitioner – father as nominee to the above stated compulsory life insurance policy. 10. Rule 6 of Rules, 1958 makes insurance compulsory for every Government servant including a probationer from the date of his joining service, except a Government servant whose age exceeds 50 years. 11 11. Rule 23 of Rules, 1958 provides for settlement of claims. Rule 23(b) of Rules, 1958 which is relevant for the present case reads as follows: “23. (a) ………… (b) If the insured is reported to be dead the sum assured by the policy will be paid to the person or persons whom the insured has, as under these rules, nominated during his lifetime and such nomination is registered in the Department, subject to the production of a satisfactory proof of death, and of matters incidental thereto, as required by the Director.” The above Rule provides for settlement of claim, in respect of a Government servant who is reported to be dead, in favour of a person nominated, subject to the production of a satisfactory proof of death and of matters incidental thereto. In other words, it provides for settlement of claim in respect of a deceased Government servant in favour of a nominee in the 12 normal course in respect of normal or accidental death. 12. Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 reads as follows: “38. Suicide. – Policies which have been in force for at least one year are not rendered void by the death of the insured by suicide.” A reading of the above makes it abundantly clear that if the policy is in force for at least one year, the death of insured by suicide would not be an impediment for settlement of claim under Rule 23(b) of Rules, 1958. If a Government servant on obtaining compulsory insurance policy dies by committing suicide within one year from the date of obtaining the compulsory insurance policy, the nominee would not be entitled for the sum assured and such policy would become void in terms of Rule 38 of Rules, 1958. 13 13. Learned senior counsel contended that Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 is contrary to Rule 23(b) of Rules, 1958 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said contention cannot be accepted and the same is untenable. Rule 38 and Rule 23(b) of Rules, 1958 have to be read together harmoniously, which would mean that if the insured commits suicide within one year from the date of issuance of policy, the policy would become void. The object and purpose of compulsory insurance as submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General is to provide financial security to the Government servant and his family. If the insured commits suicide and the nominee/family member claims the sum assured, it would defeat the purpose and object of the insurance policy and the financial security to the Government servants. Rule 23(b) of Rules, 1958 provides for settlement of claim on the normal or accidental death other than suicidal 14 death. Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 restricts settlement of claim only in respect of suicidal death within one year from the date of issuance of insurance policy. If the suicidal death is beyond one year, no such restriction is imposed. Therefore, it cannot be said that Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 is opposed to Rule 23(b) of Rules, 1958. Further, the petitioner has not explained how the Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 would create a class, i.e., it would restrict settlement of claim only in respect of suicidal death within one year from the date of issuance of insurance policy, which is reasonable. 14. The Tribunal is justified in rejecting the prayer insofar as declaration of Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 as unconstitutional is concerned. However, Tribunal is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the 15 petitioner has no locus to challenge Rule 38 of Rules, 1958 for the reasons recorded above. 15. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE (K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE NC. CT: bms