MADHURAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the widow of late Sri Narayana Rao. The said Narayana Rao was serving as an Assistant Master at the Higher Primary School in a village called Hura in Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District. He made an application seeking permission of the Government to retire voluntarily as early as on 27.9.1978 enclosing the required Medical Certificate under Rule 278(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. There was no response from the Government to that application. He died on 16.6.1979. The petitioner has averred that in view of the death of her husband while he was still in service, she became entitled to Rs. 10,000/- payable to the widow of a Government servant who died in service together with Death-cum-Gratuity benefit etc., and the death of Narayana Rao was brought to the notice of the Departmental Superiors, and as also the claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to get a Succession Certificate under the Indian Succession Act. After a considerable expense, petitioner obtained the Certificate and produced the same before the Authorities. To the surprise of the petitioner, the Government instead of acting on her claim communicated the Government Order under which late Sri Narayana Rao was permitted to retire from service with effect from 14.11.1978, -nearly six months after his death, by communication dated 6.2.1980. In view of the last mentioned Government approval for voluntary retirement, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Authorities. In the circumstances, the petitioner has been denied the family pension and other benefits. Therefore, she has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that it was not open to the Government to pass Annexure 'D' after the Government servant had expired. She further contends that her husband must be deemed to have died while in service and that the Government had no power to issue retrospective approval of his application seeking premature voluntary retirement, after his death.

(2.) Respondents have put in appearance and filed Statement of objections. The facts alleged by the petitioner are not disputed. It is contended for the respondents that in view of the administrative delay involved in processing the application of the husband of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, he must be deemed to have been permitted to retire in the light of the Medical Certificate produced. It is asserted that the Director of Public Instructions had issued a Memo permitting the petitioner to retire with effect from 14.11.1978, but no such memo has been brought to my notice nor there is any evidence of service of such a memo on the petitioner's husband. Therefore, the assertion made by the respondent is not tenable.

(3.) However, the learned Government Pleader strangely enough brought to my notice the letter dated 3.8.1984 addressed by the Government to the Director of Public Instructions pointing out that the service rules do not apply to the case of the petitioner's husband as the official could not be retired voluntarily after his death.