Smt. Shakuntala @ Shakuntalamma vs N.Nutan Kumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 4996 Kant

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                                                        R
           DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.138/2016 (RES)
                       C/W.
     CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.146/2016 (RES)

IN CRP NO.138/2016:

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT. SHAKUNTALA @ SHAKUNTALAMMA
     W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

2.   KUM. RUKMINI
     D/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY
     AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

3.   SATISH
     S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY
     AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

     PETITIONER NO.3 IS MINOR
     REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL
     GUARDIAN/MOTHER
     SMT. SHAKUNTALA @ SHAKUNTALAMMA
     I.E., THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN.
     THAT ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
     PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BYADGERE POST,
     KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
     TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.           ... PETITIONERS

              (BY SRI B.C.AVINASH, ADVOCATE)
                              2



AND:

1.     N.NUTAN KUMAR
       S/O LATE SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY
       AGED 45 YEARS
       R/AT 5TH CROSS,
       ANNANAGAR, WARD NO.30
       SHIMOGA CITY-577201

2.     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
       ZILLA PANCHAYAT
       SHIMOGA-577201

3.     THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT
       INSURANCE DEPARTMENT
       SHIMOGA DISTRICT
       SHIMOGA-577201.                  ... RESPONDENTS

       (BY SRI SATEESH CHANDRA K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
            SRI B.J.ESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                        R3 IS SERVED)

     THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.02.2016 PASSED IN P &
SC APPEAL 2/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED UNDER
SEC.384 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT AND ALLOWING THE
JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2008 PASSED IN P & SC 21/2003 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM.,
SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.372
OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.

IN CRP NO.146/2016:

BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. SHAKUNTALA @ SHAKUNTALAMMA
       W/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
                             3




2.     KUM. RUKMINI
       D/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY
       AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

3.     SATISH
       S/O LATE NARASIMHAMURTHY
       AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS

       PETITIONER NO.3 IS MINOR
       REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL
       GUARDIAN/MOTHER
       SMT. SHAKUNTALA @ SHAKUNTALAMMA
       I.E., THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN.
       THAT ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
       PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BYADGERE POST,
       KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
       TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.           ... PETITIONERS

              (BY SRI B.C.AVINASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     N.NUTAN KUMAR
       S/O LATE SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY
       AGED 45 YEARS
       R/AT 5TH CROSS,
       ANNANAGAR, WARD NO.30
       SHIMOGA CITY-577201.              ... RESPONDENT

         (BY SRI SATEESH CHANDRA K.V., ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.02.2016 PASSED IN P
AND SC.NO.1/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE
SHIVAMOGGA. DISMISSING THE COUNTER APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
20.12.2008 PASSED IN P AND SC NO.27/2003 ON THE FILE OF
THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM,
                                     4



SHIVAMOGGA, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.372
OF INDIAN SUCCESSSION ACT.

    THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 10.07.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

These two revision petitions are filed by the petitioners in

P&SC No.21/2003 challenging the common judgment passed by

the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM at Shivamogga, dated

20.12.2008, insofar as it relates to allotting only equal share in

the death benefits of deceased Narasimhamurthy and also being

aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Principal District

Judge, Shivamogga in P&SC Appeal No.2/2012, wherein the First

Appellate Court by setting aside the judgment passed by the

Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM at Shivamogga in P&SC

No.21/2003 and allowing the appeal filed by the respondent in

P&SC Appeal No.1/2012 dated 5.2.2016, preferred these two

revision petitions.

2. The factual matrix of case of the petitioners in P&SC

No.21/2003 that the first petitioner is the wife of

Narasimhamurthy and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children of

Narasimhamurthy and petitioners in P&SC No.27/2003 first

petitioner claims that she is the wife of Narasimhamurthy and

second petitioner is the son of Narasimhamurthy and having

perused the pleadings of both the P&SC Nos.21 and 27 of 2003

claims that they are the wife and children of Narasimhamurthy.

The petitioners in P&SC No.21/2003 examined the first petitioner

as PW1 before the trial Court and got marked the documents

Exs.P1 to P34 and petitioners in P&SC No.27/2003 examined the

first petitioner as RW1 and also examined one witness as RW2

and got marked document Exs.R1 to R18. The trial Court having

appreciated both oral and documentary evidence allowed P&SC

No.21/2003 and petition filed by the petitioners in P&SC

No.27/2003 is rejected. However, held that petitioner Nos.1 to 3

in P&SC No.21/2003 and petitioner No.2 in P&SC No.27/2003

are entitled to equal share in the service benefits of deceased

Narasimhamurthy and they are entitled to succession certificate

and also ordered that petitioner No.1 i.e. Smt.Shakuntala is

entitled to claim the appointment on compassionate ground on

behalf of the death of Narasimhamurthy, as she is his nearest

legal heir. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court,

the petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003 filed two appeals. The same

is numbered as P&SC Appeal No.1 and 2 of 2012 i.e. second

petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003, since the first petitioner was no

more and in both the appeals, the petitioners in P&SC

No.21/2003 are the respondents and Zilla Panchayath also made

as respondent No.4 in P&SC Appeal No.2/2012 and KGID as

respondent No.5. The first appellate Court on re-appreciation of

both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion

that the first petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003 is the wife and

second petitioner is the son and hence the appeal filed by said

Nutan Kumar is allowed and counter appeal filed by the

contesting respondent Nos.1 to 3 is rejected. Consequently,

P&SC No.27/2003 is partly allowed and P&SC No.21/2003 is

rejected and hence, these two revision petitions are filed by the

petitioners challenging the orders.

3. The main contention in Civil Revision Petition

No.138/2016 is that the trial Court as well as the first appellate

Court had committed an error in passing an order and

particularly trial Court committed an error in coming to the

conclusion that said Nutan Kumar is also entitled for a share in

the service benefits of Narasimhamurthy and first appellate

Court committed an error in reversing the finding of the trial

Court and rejecting the claim made by the revision petitioners

herein.

4. The main contention of the counsel that Smt.Lakshmi

who claims that her marriage was solemnized in the year 1979

and Nutan Kumar was born on 4.9.1981, no documents have

been produced before the trial Court and first appellate Court

also failed to take note of Ex.R10, which is the self attested

document of Smt.Lakshmi and by careful perusal of the said

document, it seems that the said document is issued by the food

and civil supplies authorities during the year 1998 and the name

of the first respondent has been included on 13.7.2000 for the

purpose of obtaining Driving Licence and the same is also

admitted and in spite of the same, the trial Court considered

Ex.R10. Even for the sake of argument, if Ex.R10 is admitted, as

per the said document Jagadish is born during 1976, Manjunath

is born during 1978 and Rajeshwari is born during 1981. It is the

case of the deceased Smt.Lakshmi that she married to

Narasimhamurthy on 23.4.1979. When such being the case, the

contents of Ex.R10 and the averments of Smt.Lakshmi do not

tally, per contra contradict with each other, which clearly

establishes the fact that deceased Smt.Lakshmi was never

married to Narasimhamurthy and has admitted by Smt.Lakshmi

in her cross-examination that name of the children mentioned in

Ex.R10 are all foster children and as such the first respondent is

admittedly not a son of the deceased Narasimhamurthy and the

first appellate Court failed to consider this aspect at the time of

passing of the judgment. The counsel also vehemently contend

that both trial Court and first appellate Court failed to consider

the document Ex.P4, Ex.P10, Exs.P14 to P22, P24 to P26, P31

and P32. The documents Exs.P19 to 26 are very clear that after

the death of Narasimhamurthy, the second respondent has

issued notices to the first petitioner herein to quit, vacate and

hand over the Zilla Panchayath quarters and hence it is clear

that the petitioners in P&SC No.21/2003 were residing along

with said Narasimhamurthy when he passed away and the same

also has not been considered and also contend that in document

Ex.P31 the deceased Narasimhamurthy after canceling the name

of his mother Smt. Adiyamma, has included the name of his wife

Smt.Shakuntala as nominee and these materials were not

considered by the first appellate Court and hence the order

impugned is liable to be set aside.

5. The counsel also in his argument vehemently contend

that the petitioner No.1 in P&SC No.27/2003, she is not the

legally wedded wife and counsel also contend that the first

petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003 admitted the marriage of the

revision petitioners herein, photograph and invitation only

produced, no other documents are produced and hence requires

interference.

6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents in these

revision petitions would vehemently contend that the petitioners

in P&SC No.27/2003, first petitioner has examined herself as

RW1 and also examined one witness as RW2 who witnessed the

fact that petitioner No.1 and the deceased Narasimhamurthy

lived together at Shivamogga and documents Exs.R5, R6 and

R10 also evidence the fact of marriage and they lived together

and they are the legally wedded wife and son of

Narasimhamurthy. It is also contended that RW2 clearly speaks

with regard to, that they were lived together and Nutan Kumar

born in the year 1981 and he was admitted to school and the

document Ex.R13 series also contents the signature of

Narasimhamurthy i.e.. progress card of said Nutan Kumar. The

very reasoning given by the trial Court that Priest has not been

examined to prove the marriage and committed an error and

first appellate Court has rightly appreciated both oral and

documentary evidence and it does not require any interference.

7. Having heard the respective counsel, the points that

would arise for consideration by this Court are:

i) Whether the revision petitions filed by the revision petitioners requires to be allowed and to set aside the order passed in P&SC No.27/2003 recognizing the Nutan Kumar also entitled for a share in the service benefits of deceased Narasimhamurthy?

ii) Whether the order impugned passed in P&SC Appeal No.1/2012 and 2/2012 requires to be set aside and committed an error in recognizing

only N.Nutan Kumar is entitled for service benefits?

8. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal

of the material available on record, particularly perusing the

pleadings in P&SC No.21/2003, she claims that she is the legally

wedded wife and petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are born to their

marriage and also the pleadings in P&SC No.27/2003, first

petitioner claims that she is the wife of Narasimhamurthy and

second petitioner son born to their marriage took place in the

year 1979. It is the claim of the petitioners in P&SC No.21/2003

that first petitioner marriage was solemnized with

Narasimhamurthy in the year 1990 and on the other hand it is

the claim of the first petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003 that her

marriage was solemnized in the year 1979. There is no dispute

with regard to the fact that said Narasimhamurthy was employed

in Zilla Panchayath and only after his death, dispute arisen

between the parties that too for the service benefits. It is also

important to note that in any of the service records, said

Narasimhamurthy not mentioned either the first petitioner in

both the petitions as respective wives and no such service

records are available before the Court. It is also emerged in the

evidence that though the first petitioner in P&SC No.21/2003

claims that her marriage was solemnized with Narasimhamurthy

and she categorically admits that no invitation card was printed

and also she was not examined any other witnesses in support of

her marriage except relying upon the school records.

9. The first petitioner Smt.Lakshmi in P&SC No.27/2003,

herself examined as RW1 and examined one witness RW3 and he

speaks that Narasimhamurthy and Smt.Lakshmi were living at

Annanagar, Shivamogga and he was having acquaintance with

the family of Narasimhamurthy after 1982. The said son of

Smt.Lakshmi, N. Nutan Kumar is also examined before the trial

Court as RW2.

10. On perusal of the entire evidence and also through out

there was a denial by both sides that they are not the wives of

Narasimhamurthy, but nothing is elicited in the cross

examination of any of the witnesses and oral evidence is not

helpful to either of the parties. But documentary evidence of

petitioner in P&SC No.21/2003, no doubt relies upon Exs.P1 to

P38 and those documents are with regard to death certificate

and order issued by Zilla Panchayath, endorsement issued by the

Tahsildar and voters list, genealogical tree and order issued by

Zilla Panchayath, notice issued by Zilla Panchayath, letter to

KGID, application to Zilla Panchayath, Shivamogga and main

documents are Exs.P10 and P11 birth certificate of second and

third petitioners in P&SC No.21/2003 and Exs.P12 and P13 are

school certificates and other documents are correspondence

between the department and main documents are Exs.P12 and

P13, school certificates and no doubt the father name is

mentioned as Narasimhamurthy and also the document

produced by the respondent also, letter from Zilla Panchayath,

Shivamogga and endorsement issued in terms of Ex.R2 and

Ex.R3 photographs and Ex.R4 marriage invitation card, Exs.R5

and R6 are Transfer Certificates, Exs.R7 and R8 are identity

cards and Ex.R9 is the positive photograph and Ex.R10 is the

ration card. The main documents are Exs.R5 and R6 Transfer

Certificates, wherein the father name is mentioned as

Narasimhamurthy and it is also important to note that Exs.R13

to R17 progress reports of the school are also produced and

having perused the document Ex.R13 to R17 they are the prior

documents of alleged marriage between Smt.Shakuntala and

Narasimhamurthy i.e. in the year 1990, but those documents are

prior to the said marriage and signatures of the said

Narasimhamurthy also got marked as Exs.R13A to R17A and

these documents are before the dispute arises between the

parties and also produced Ex.R18 Cumulative Record of

Narasimhamurthy and when these documents came into

existence prior to the dispute between the respective petitioner

No.1 in both the case, Court has to give credence to those

documents and accordingly the first appellate Court also having

considered the material available on record, rightly comes to the

conclusion that documents produced by petitioner No.1 in P&SC

No.21/2003 that her marriage was solemnized in the year 1979,

invitation card discloses the same and hence it is clear that

marriage of Smt.Lakshmi was solemnized in the year 1979 with

Narasimhamurthy and her evidence is also supported by RW2

and RW3 and RW3 is the neighbourer and who is competent to

speak with regard to the relationship between Narasimhamurthy

and petitioner and the same is also considered in paragraph

No.28 by the first appellate Court and also taken note of the fact

that with regard to the scope of succession certificate and

succession certificate only with regard to the movables and also

for recovery of debt and I do not find any error committed by

the first appellate Court in re-appreciation of both oral and

documentary evidence available on record and question of

compassionate appointment does not arise in a succession

certificate as held by the first appellate Court. The first appellate

Court also considering the material on record rightly comes to

the conclusion that the Court has to decide amongst the

contesting parties who is having a better material for issuance of

succession certificate and also rightly comes to the conclusion

that, after eleven years of her marriage, Smt.Shakuntala was

married as claimed by her, question before the Court is, who is

entitled for succession certificate. Admittedly, the first petitioner

Smt.Lakshmi in P&SC No.27/2003 is no more, then question

arises before the Court who is entitled for succession certificate.

When the documentary evidence supports the case of the second

petitioner Nutan Kumar and also the evidence of RW3 supports

that Lakshmi and Narasimhamurthy were living together at

Shivamogga and subsistence of first marriage with Lakshmi, the

question of second marriage with Smt.Shakuntala will not create

any right and marriage void-ab-initio and hence the second wife

wont get any right to share the benefits of the said deceased

Narasimhamurthy and First Appellate Court not committed any

error.

11. Now the question before the Court is with regard to the

children who are born out of the second marriage whether they

are entitled or not. The records discloses that there was a

marriage between Smt.Lakshmi and Narasimhamurthy in the

year 1979 and thereafter, Nutan Kumar was born in the year

1981 and I have pointed out that Exs.R5 and R6 are the Transfer

Certificates and Ex.R13 progress certificates which contains the

signature of Narasimhamurthy and those documents are prior to

the alleged marriage between Smt.Shakuntala and

Narasimhamurthy in the year 1990 and hence the Court has to

give importance to those documentary evidence apart from

evidence of RW2 and hence he is a legally born son to

Smt.Lakshmi.

12. The main contention of the counsel for the revision

petitioner that Ex.R10 discloses the age and also mention the

names of foster son, but she admits that all are foster sons and

the said contention cannot be accepted when the documentary

evidence available on record. Hence, I do not find any error

committed by first appellate Court in coming to the conclusion

that he is the son of Smt.Lakshmi and Narasimhamurthy.

13. Now the question is with regard to whether the

children born to second wife i.e. petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in P&SC

No.21/2023 are also entitled for the relief of service benefits of

deceased Narasimhamurthy.

14. It is the contention of petitioner Nos.1 to 3 that the

first petitioner is the legally wedded wife, second and third

petitioners were born to the said valid marriage. But having

considered the material on record, this Court comes to the

conclusion that already there was a marriage between Lakshmi

and Narasimhamurthy in the year 1979 and the same is also

considered by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court and

also taken note of both oral and documentary evidence and

according to the claim of Smt.Shakuntala, i.e. first petitioner

that she is the legally wedded wife and not Smt.Lakshmi. The

said contention is not accepted by considering the material on

record, but no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioner

Nos.2 and 3 are born to Smt.Shakuntala and Sri.

Narasimhamurthy and whether they are entitled for service

benefits is the question before this Court.

15. This Court would like to refer the judgment of this

Court in the case of SMT.NAGARATHNAMMA Vs.

SMT.VENKATALAKSHMAMMA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2000

KAR. 181, a single bench of this Court in MSA No.372/1998 vide

order dated 3.1.2000 held that, under Section 16 of Hindu

Succession Act, children born from both of his wives would be

entitled to succeed to retiral benefits in equal shares. It is

observed that, his second wife however performed during life

time of his spouse cannot be deemed to be validly performed

marriage. But, consequently, his second wife would not be

entitled to succeed to his pensional benefits. But held that the

children born to even second wife also entitled for retiral benefits

of the deceased and the said principle is also applicable to the

facts of the case on hand.

16. It is also important to note that the Division Bench in

the case of K.SANTHOSHA Vs. THE KARNATAKA POWER

TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE AND

OTHERS reported in 2022 (1) Kar.L.J. 154, while dealing with

the matter on appointment of compassionate ground considering

Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 comes to the

conclusion that prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of

religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth and equality of

opportunity in matters of public employment, right of a child

born out of a void marriage held that, when the Parliament

under Section 16 of the Act, has treated legitimate and

illegitimate children on par and given them equal status,

Regulation 2(1)(b) cannot restrict the expression family in

relation to deceased employee to mean only his or her legally

wedded spouse and children jointly living with him. It is further

held that no child is born in this world without a father and a

mother and child has no role to play in his or her birth. Hence,

there can be illegitimate parents, but no illegitimate children and

the children born to even void marriage also cannot choose the

parents. The law is evolved having considered that the children

born to a second wife have not committed any sin for the act of

their parents.

17. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of RAMESHWARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF

BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2000)2 SCC 431, wherein also

discussed with regard to the pension and family pension,

children of second marriage and observed that the deceased

employee, a Hindu, contracting second marriage during

subsistence of his first marriage, children born out of the second

marriage, according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, were

legitimate though the marriage itself was void. It is also

observed that High Court therefore holding that the minor

children of second marriage were entitled to the family pension,

but not the second widow and even observed with regard to the

fact that it was amply established on the basis of oral and

documentary evidence that the deceased employee and the

second spouse were living as husband and wife, cohabitation for

a long period gives rise to a strong presumption of wedlock and

further held that presumption of marriage from long period of

cohabitation, and when the Supreme Court also confirmed the

same and held that the children born to the second marriage

were entitled to family pension.

18. This Court also would like to refer the recent judgment

of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND

ANOTHER Vs. V.R.TRIPATHI reported in (2019) 14 SCC 646,

wherein discussed with regard to the compassionate

appointment. But even considered the children born to the

second wife also entitled for compassionate appointment and

held that under Section 16 does not in any manner affect the

principles declared in Section 16(1) in regard to the legitimacy of

the child. The children born from void or voidable marriage and

their status is legitimate children and also considered the earlier

judgment of Tripahti case and law is evolved even with regard to

the compassionate appointment also that children born to

second wife entitled for compassionate appointment. It is also

important to note that the Apex Court held that children do not

choose their parents, even children born to a void marriage also

legitimate and legitimacy of such child is a matter of public

policy to protect him or her from consequences of illegitimacy.

19. Having perused the principles laid own by the

judgments of the Apex Court and also the judgment of this Court

and also in Tripathi Case, the Apex Court held that under Section

16, child has legitimate, it would not be open to state to exclude

such children from the benefit, such condition of exclusion is

arbitrary and ultra-vires and again the Supreme Court states

that children do not choose their parents and having considered

the said judgment and also the material on record it is born out

from the records, that the marriage of Lakshmi and

Narasimhamurthy was held in 1979 and this Court also

considered the school records and also the documents at Ex.R1

i.e. progress records of Sri.Nutan Kumar and also taken note of

the child born to second wife i.e. Smt.Shakuntala, trial Court

rightly considered that the children of Narasimhamurthy through

first wife and second wife are also entitled for the service

benefits, but the revisional Court reverse the same only held

that Nutan Kumar is entitled and ignored the legitimacy of other

two children i.e. petitioners 2 and 3 in P&SC No.21/2003 and

comes to the conclusion that they are not entitled and in view of

the law involved from 2000 onwards, since this Court held in the

judgment referred supra that they are entitled for retiral benefits

and also subsequent judgment of the Apex Court and also the

judgment of Division Bench of this Court, it is very clear that

children will not choose their parents and also such people have

not committed any sin of become the children of second

marriage of a person who contracted the second marriage during

the subsistence of first marriage and both the Courts have given

the finding that the subsequent marriage is a second marriage,

but only revisional Court comes to the conclusion that the other

children born to the second wife are not entitled and the same

requires to be set aside and hence, I pass the following

ORDER

i) The revision petitions filed by the petitioners are hereby

allowed.

ii) The judgment of the trial Court passed in P&SC

No.21/2003 and also the order passed in P&SC No.27/2003 are

modified and the order passed in the revision petitions in

respective revisions are also modified and held that Nutan

Kumar who is the second petitioner in P&SC No.27/2003 and

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in P&SC No.21/2003 are equally entitled

for retirement benefits of deceased Narasimhamurthy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ap*