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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 7681

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
SMT RUDRAVVA D/O BASAPPA BUDNUR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 108918/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.108918 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. RUDRAVVA D/O. BASAPPA BUDNUR, AGE. 42 YEARS, SINCE MENTALLY DISABLED IS BEING REPRESENTED BY HER SISTER SMT. DODDAVVA W/O. BHIMAPPA PUJER, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. YARADAL, TALUK. BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVICHANDRAGOUDA R.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Digitally signed by ROOM NO.236, 2ND FLOOR, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR STREET, Location: HI GH BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY COURT OF KARNATAKA THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

3. HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY (HESCOM), NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR.

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O AND M DIVISION, HESCOM, BAILHONGAL, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591102.

5. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION), KPTCL DIVISION OFFICE, SOMWARPETH, BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

SRI. B.S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4 AND R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO SANCTION AND RELEASE FAMILY PENSION IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER, THROUGH HER LAWFUL GUARDIAN; 2. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE LATEST REPRESENTATION DATED 30.09.2024 HEREBY ANNEXED AT ANNEXURE E AND EXTEND PENSIONARY BENEFITS WITHIN A TIME-FRAME FIXED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT; 3. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

“1. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and release family pension in favor of the petitioner, through her lawful guardian;

2. Direct the respondents to consider and act upon the latest representation dated 30.09.2024 hereby annexed at Annexure E and extend pensionary benefits within a time-frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

3. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The petitioner is a mentally disabled daughter of deceased Basappa Ningappa Budnur, who served as a lineman under the respondent No.3/HESCOM at Bailhongal and died on 30.10.2013 leaving behind his wife and three daughters. After his demise, the family pension was sanctioned in favour of the wife i.e., the mother of the petitioner. She also died on 08.05.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, who is physically challenged daughter of the deceased Basappa Ningappa Budnur is entitled to the family pension, as she suffers from permanent mental or intellectual disability and has no independent means of livelihood. She is entirely dependent on her lawful guardian for sustenance and care. She made repeated representations requesting sanction of pension and the latest representation is dated 30.09.2024. It is submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to maintain herself and the Court ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for sanction of the pension. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the Karnataka Government Servants’ (Family Pension) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘Family Pension Rules’) and as per the same, the petitioner is entitled for the family pension.

3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/HESCOM submits that the representation as stated to have been given to the respondents is not available with them. If a representation is given, whether the petitioner is entitled for the family pension, the

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