IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 33267 OF 2024 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. KARUNA SEN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 701, 8TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR 1ST STAGE, MYSURU-570 017.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. PARVATHY R. NAIR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE UNION OF INDIA Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AASEEFA PARVEEN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, Location: HIGH COURT OF SOUTH BLOCK, KARNATAKA NEW DELHI-110 011.

2. THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION)

DRAUPADI GHAT ALLAHABAD UTTAR PRADESH- 211 014.

3. NAVAL PENSION OFFICE (NAVPEN)

C/O INS TANAJI, SION-TROMBAY ROAD MANKHURD, MUMBAI-400 088.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.C.CHENGAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE RULE 84 OF THE INDIAN NAVY REGULATION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

The Petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following prayer:

(a) DECLARE Rule 84 of The Indian Navy Regulation as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of The Constitution of India.

(b) ISSUE a writ of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned letter dated No.PEN/600/Misc dated 02.09.2024 Naval Pension Office at Annexure- L directing the Respondent to recover the alleged excess pension paid to the Petitioner.

(c) ISSUE a writ of MANDAMUS directing the Respondents to pay the Petitioner the family pension applicable to that of the rank of Chief Petty Officer.

(d) PASS any other order that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice and equity.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not press prayer A.

3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The husband of the petitioner was appointed as a Seaman-II in the Indian Navy on 16.10.1970. The husband of the petitioner passed away on 11.09.1999 leaving behind the petitioner as his legal representative. The petitioner submitted the representation to the respondents for settlement of family pension. However, the said representation was rejected by the respondents and the letter dated 02.09.2024 was issued to recover the alleged excess pension paid to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner served in Indian Navy for more than 22 years and retired from service. He died on 11.09.1999 leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. After the demise of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents, requesting for the reason for decreasing the pension be clarified to the individual. Further the pension be reverted to the rank of CPO rank if it was an oversight/unintentional error. The respondents passed an order dated 02.09.2024 vide Annexure-L. The petitioner aggrieved by annexure-L filed this writ petition. She submits that the respondents have committed an error in decreasing the pension and hence, on these grounds she prays to allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order passed by the respondents needs to be reconsidered by the respondents and hence, he prays to quash Annexure-L and direct the respondents to reconsider the representation and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. He submitted that there is a defect in the impugned order. Hence, he prays to dispose of the writ petition.

7. I have perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

8. It is an undisputed fact that the husband of the petitioner served in Indian Na