[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. C. Ramakrishna vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2026
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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:
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. 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
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. 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
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
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
