Smt Mangala Gowri vs Karnataka Power Transmission ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8498 Kant

                            1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

        WRIT PETITION No.15687/2021(S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT MANGALA GOWRI
W/O LATE UMASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT CHANNAMANAHALLI
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
ANJANAPURA POST
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 560 037
                                          ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SAMPATH.A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
       CORPORATION LTD
       CAUVERY BHAVAN
       K G ROAD,
       BENGLAURU 560 001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.     BENGALURU ELECTRICTIY SUPPLY COMPANY
       CORPORATE OFFICE
       K R CIRCLE
       BENGALURU-560 001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

3.     THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       IV WEST SUB-DIVISION
       KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
       CORPORATION LTD
                                    2


        BENGALURU 560 001
                                              ... RESPONDENTS

  (BY Ms. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO DISBURSE THE TERMINAL BENEFITS AND
PENSION IN VIEW OF DEATH OF UMASHANKA, WHO WAS AN
EMPLOYEE OF THE RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of

mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the

terminal benefits and pension in view of the death of

Umashankar.

2. The admitted fact is that the petitioner herein is

stated to be the 2nd wife of Late Umashankar. It is

submitted that within the wedlock of petitioner and Late

Umashankar, a son by name Madhusudan was born. It also

comes out from the submissions made and records available

that, B. Mangala was the first wife of Late Umashankar and

from within the said wedlock, Vijaykumar and Mahesh were

born. It is further submitted that in light of certain

disputes, O.S.No.289/2001 came to be filed before the II

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, seeking for the

relief of declaration. The said suit came to be decreed in

part as follows:

"The suit is partly decreed in following terms:

The second plaintiff is declared as the legitimate child of the first plaintiff and the deceased Umashankar.

Each one of the plaintiffs 2 to 4 is entitled to his respective share in the terminal benefits of the deceased Umashankar.

Second and third defendants are directed to settle the terminal benefits proportionately on plaintiffs 2 to 4 along with the claim of first defendant and B. Mangala, if any, in accordance with his / her individual share.

Rest of the suit as it related to relief (d) of the suit and as it relates to the first plaintiff is dismissed.

The first plaintiff is disentitled to represent plaintiffs 3 and 4."

3. Accordingly, in terms of the order of the Civil

Court, Madhusudan was declared to be the legitimate child

of the petitioner and deceased Umashankar. Further,

Vijaykumar, Mahesh and Madhusudan were declared to be

entitled to the share for the terminal benefits of the

deceased Umashankar. Accordingly, there was a direction

for settlement of terminal benefits proportionately along

with the claim of mother and first wife of Umashankar, if

any.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for

petitioner that all the parties who had declared to be

entitled to the terminal benefits in the original suit are

dead. It is further submitted that Madhusudan has been

missing for the past 7 years and is to be treated to be dead.

Accordingly, it is submitted that even if the petitioner herein

was not entitled to any share in terms of the judgment of

O.S.No.289/2001, by virtue of the legal status of the

petitioner as the second wife of late Umashankar and

mother of Madhusudan, she is entitled for what otherwise

would be the entitlement of Madhusudan and the other

children of Umashankar as per law.

5. Learned counsel for respondents has filed a

memo and submits that in terms of the records of the

employer, B. Mangala was declared to be the nominee and

Form-A is enclosed along with a memo. It is further

submitted that Mahesh, son born to the first wife and

Umashankar has also withdrawn family benefits and other

entitlement under the life cover scheme. Copy of the bill is

also enclosed along with the memo. It is further submitted

that the difficulty in considering any claim insofar as the

present petitioner is concerned is in light of the order of the

trial Court wherein the claim of the petitioner herein was

rejected.

6. Suffice it to say that Mangala Gowri, petitioner

herein is not claiming the benefits in terms of the claim in

the original suit but is now claiming the benefits as heir of

the other heirs of Umashankar, whose rights were upheld in

O.S.No.289/2001. If it is the claim of the petitioner that she

is entitled as a legal heir of Madhusudan and also as the

step mother of Mahesh and Vijaykumar, such claim is still

available to be considered dehors the direction of the Civil

Court in light of the claim being made in a different

capacity. It is open for the respondents to examine such

claim as per law and an appropriate decision be taken in the

matter taking note of whatever terminal benefits that have

already been released and the terminal benefits that are left

for disbursal. Such decision to be taken within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

the order being made available to the respondents.

7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VP