SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39354

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ASHOK S.KINAGI
SMT JYOTHI – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMSISIONER – Respondent
WP 4776/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 4776 OF 2023 (S-RES)

BETWEEN: SMT JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE P. NAGARAJU, RESIDING AT NO.135, 10TH CROSS, 13TH MAIN ROAD, VENAKTASWAMY GARDEN, J.J.R. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560018.

Digita lly signed by SUNITHA K S …PETITIONER Location:

HIGH COURT (BY SRI. G.S. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR OF SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B., ADVOCATE)

KARNATAKA AND:

1. THE COMMSISIONER BBMP, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560033.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE EGNINEER BBMP, CHIKKAPETE DIVISION, NEAR NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, OPP: TO INDIAN OIL PETROL BUNK, K.R. CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANI M A.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.B12(2)PR-242/2002-03, 31.1.2003 PASSED BY THE R1 AT ANNEXURE-B AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.SA.KA.PA.A/GA.THY.NI/CHI.PE/P.R/15/22-23 DTD 02.11.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO SETTLE/PAY THE DEATH-CUM- RETIREMENT GRATUITY AND OTHER MONETARY BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following prayers:

(i) To quash the impugned order bearing No.B12(2)PR-242/2002-03, 31.01.2003 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure "B";

(ii) To quash the impugned endorsement bearing No.SA.KA.PA.A / GA.THY.NI / CHI.PE / P.R / 15 / 22-23 dated 02.11.2022 passed by respondent No.2 vide at Annexure "F"

(iii) To direct the respondents to settle/pay the Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (”DCRG") and other monetary benefits to the petitioner forthwith under the facts and circumstances of this case:

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

3. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the late P.Nagaraju, who was working as a Pourakarmika in B.B.M.P. with Badge No.4738/B in Chamarajapete Ward. It is contented that the petitioner's husband joined BBMP on 03.02.1992 on compassionate ground. It is contended that her husband left the house on 14.06.2001 stating that he was going to office. However, unfortunately, he did not return home. As a result, the petitioner lodged a missing complaint of her husband before Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station on 23.06.2001 with a request to trace out her husband. Respondent No.1 issued an endorsement on 22.11.2003 stating that her husband was dismissed from service due to unauthorised absenteeism from 14.06.2001 vide order dated 31.01.2003.

4. It is contented that on 22.11.2008, the jurisdictional Police issued an endorsement to the petitioner stating that despite all the efforts made, the petitioner's husband could not be traced.

5. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.4655 of 2019 on the file of the learned V Addl. City Civil Court, Bangalore, making the respondents as the defendants with a prayer to declare that the petitioner's husband P.Nagaraju is deemed to have dead on 15.06.2001.

6. The Trial Court, after holding an enquiry, passed a judgment and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 11.11.2020 and declared that the petitioner's husband is presumed to be dead on 15.06.2001 at Bangalore. The judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit has attained finality.

7. The petitioner, after the disposal of the said suit, submitted a representation with a request to issue a Death Certificate. The petitioner also submitted a representation to the respondents to release gratuity benefit. The respondents rejected the said application / representation vide endorsement dated

02.11.2022 vide Annexure "F" stating that the petitioner's husband was terminated from service vide order dated 31.01.2003 vide Ann

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top