Karnataka High Court
Sri.T.K. Abdul Rahiman vs The Asst. General Manager (Admn) on 16 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15104
WP No. 2746 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.2746 OF 2024 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.T.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE MOOSA KUNHI
2. AMEENA BEEVI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
D/O T K ABDUL RAHIMAN
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED
BY HER FATHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.8-36, KOLANGARE HOUSE
SOMESHWARA TALAPADY
Digitally signed TALAPADY
by CHAITHRA A MANGALORE - 575 023
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN)
CORPORATE OFFICE
MANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
COMPANY LTD., (MESCOM)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15104
WP No. 2746 of 2024
(GOVT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING)
MANGALORE- 575001
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE)
CIRCLE OFFICE
MESCOM
MANGALORE - 575001
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
(O & M DIVISION)
MESCOM ATTAVARA
MANGALORE - 575 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT DTD 23.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE R3 AT
ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal
heirs of one Smt.Shareena T, who was wife of petitioner
No.1 and mother of petitioner No.2 and she was employed
with respondents - MESCOM. Petitioner No.1's wife died
in harness and petitioners claiming to be husband and
daughter respectively submitted a representation
NC: 2024:KHC:15104
requesting respondents company to settle family pension
and also to pay retiral benefits.
2. Respondent No.3 - the Executive Engineer by
placing reliance on the Regulation 28(2) of the Karnataka
Electricity Board Employees Service (conduct) Regulations,
1988 (for short 'Rules 1988') has issued an endorsement
dated 23.02.2023 as per Annexure-J indicating that since
wife of petitioner No.1 had contracted marriage with
petitioner No.1, who was already married, the marriage
being in contravention of Regulation 28(2) of the 'Rules
1988' and are not entitled for family pension.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
4. Before I advert to the facts of the case on
hand, this Court deems it fit to examine Regulation 28(2)
of the 'Rules, 1988' and the same is extracted, which
reads as under;
NC: 2024:KHC:15104
"ªÀÄAqÀÀ½AiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ËPÀgÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ¥ÀƪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw
E®èzÉ M§â ¥ÀwßAiÀÄÄ fêÀAvÀ EgÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
DUÀĪÀAw®è"
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the
judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
RAMESHWARI DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND
OTHERS1 while examining rival claims by the legally
wedded wife and children born out of void marriage and
referring to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, has
held that children born out of second marriage are
legitimate, though marriage itself is void. While concurring
with the judgment rendered by the High Court of Patna,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that minor children born
out of second marriage are also entitled for family
pension, however, second widower was excluded.
(2000) 2 SCC 431
NC: 2024:KHC:15104
7. In the present case on hand, there are no rival
claims. One Smt.Shareena T, who was employed with
respondents Company, married petitioner No.1 namely
T.K.Abdul Rahiman. The respondents have declined to
settle family pension and pay retirement benefits on the
ground that the employee namely Smt.Shareena T has
married petitioner No.1, who had already a living wife.
In the light of the judgment cited supra, petitioner No.1
cannot claim to be a dependent as his marriage with
Smt.Shareen T clearly contravenes Regulation 28(2) of the
Rules, 1988. However, in the light of the judgment cited
supra, respondent No.2, who is a daughter born in the
wedlock of Smt.Shareena T and petitioner No.1, dehors
her legal status of being child born out of void marriage,
her rights to claim family pension as she being dependent
on mother cannot be declined.
8. Though endorsement issued by respondent
No.3 may hold good insofar as petitioner No.1 is
concerned, respondent No.3 is required to revisit the case
NC: 2024:KHC:15104
on hand by taking cognizance of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (cited supra). It is
also relevant to take cognizance of the fact that though
employee of respondents - MESCOM by contravening Rule
28(2) of the Rules, 1988 married petitioner No.1 while she
was in service, no action was initiated by the respondents.
This issue is also dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgment (cited supra). In absence of departmental
enquiry and having regard to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court protecting a right of a minor children
even though born out of a void marriage, respondent No.3
has to re-examine the claim of petitioner No.2 by taking
cognizance of the judgment (cited supra).
9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in
part.
NC: 2024:KHC:15104
(ii) The endorsement dated
23.02.2023 issued by respondent No.3 as
per Annexure -J is hereby quashed insofar
as petitioner No.2 is concerned.
(iii) Respondent No.3 shall
re-examine the claim of petitioner No.2 by
taking cognizance of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
RAMESHWARI DEVI VS. STATE OF
BIHAR AND OTHERS (Cited Supra).
(iv) This exercise shall be
accomplished within a period of 10 weeks
from the date of receipt of order copy.
(v) Pending applications, if any, are
also disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NBM
