1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

W.P. No. 102576/2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT. SUJATA W/O RAJASHEKHAR RAMANAGOUDAR,

AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NO. 88,

SARASWATI SADAN, RAJANAGAR,

HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 001.

2.

MISS SINCHANA D/O RAJASHEKHAR RAMANAGOUDAR,

AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC.: STUDENT,

R/O: NO. 88, SARASWATI SADAN, RAJANAGAR,

HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580 001.

-

PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM,

BSNL SANCHAR SADAN BUILDING,

NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, HUBBALLI-580 020.

2.

THE CONTROLLER COMMUNICATION

ACCOUNTS (PENSION), II FLOOR,

CNX COMPOUND, PALACE ROAD,

BANGALORE-560 001.

3.

RAJASHEKHAR S/O CHANNABASAYYA RAMANAGOUDAR,

AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC.: RETIRED, C/O JAYARAJ,

RAJANNA G. ANGADI, # 144, VIJAYANAGAR, HUBLI,

DIST: DHARWAD-580 001.

4.

THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,

MAIN BRANCH, KESHWAPUR,

HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580 001.

-

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1,

SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,

2

NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH,

NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

DATED 15.06.2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MARKED AT

ANNEXURE-Q & ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

In this writ petition the petitioner is aggrieved by the

impugned letter at Annexure-G dated 15.06.2021 whereby

the claim of the petitioners for family pension in terms of

the

compromise

decree/

Lok

adalath

award

dated

19.09.2020 passed in O.S. No. 3/2020 on the file of the

Family

Court,

Hubballi,

had

been

rejected

by

the

respondent No.2.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents and perused the material on

record.

3.

The material on record indicates that the petitioners

are the wife and children of respondent No.3-Rajashekhar.

The petitioners instituted a suit in O.S. No. 3/2020 against

3

the aforesaid Rajashekhar for declaration and other reliefs

in relation to the service benefits of the aforesaid

Rajashekhar who was an employee of BSNL, Hubballi. In

the said suit, the General Manager of BSNL was arrayed as

respondent No.2 while the Controller of the BSNL, who was

in charge of disbursing the benefits had been arrayed as

respondent No.3. During the pendency of the suit, a

compromise

petition

was

entered

into

between

the

petitioners and the said Rajashekhar-defendant No.1 and

the BSNL represented by its General Manager- respondent

No.2. In the said suit defendant No.3 who was only a

formal party being the Controller for the purpose of

disbursing the benefits, was placed exparte and he did not

contest the suit or the compromise decree.

4.

A perusal of the compromise decree/ Lokadalath

award will indicate that the petitioners, their counsel,

respondent No.3-Rajashekhar and his counsel as well as

respondent No.1-General Manager, BSNL and his counsel

were present at the time of compromise. While the

4

petitioners and the aforesaid Rajashekhar were present in

person and have signed the compromise petition along with

their respective counsel, the respondent No.1-General

Manager, BSNL appeared through video conferencing and

compromise petition has been signed by the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent No.1-General Manager. These

facts are borne out from the Lokadalath award compromise

decree which has recorded terms and conditions of the

compromise whereby the parties have agreed to share not

only retirement benefits but also the family pension in

terms of the compromise.

5.

It is the grievance of the petitioners that pursuant to

the aforesaid compromise decree to which the BSNL

r