Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 779 (KAR)

P. ANANTHAKRISHNA BHAT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017-04-21

G.NARENDAR

body2017
ORDER : G. Narendar, J. 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. 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. 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 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 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 re-marriage 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 which otherwise would act as a prohibition for consideration of the application. 9. 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. 10. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.