High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Indiramma vs The General Manager on 25 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt Indiramma vs The General Manager on 25 August, 2010
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2010

THE HCNBLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAIGAVREIEEEI ~

BEFORE

W.P.NO.23883/2Q»1»O{.9.'RI: H   'A 5 A  A

BETWEEN

1.

{BY  NADEG, ADV. ,)

SMT.INDIRAMMA ' 
W/O LATE SADASHIVAIAII "
AGED ABOUT 33_.YEARS,....  '
R/AT:THINDLU,v  I 
VIDYARANYAPURA;  t_  .
EANGAL0RE--560094.V_  '

S.DEEPAE;««T:UVL:w1'-- _  
S/O L.A"ITE _,;ASI~IIvA.:A£__I  ,

AGED 'LM$0UfiE'VV19"1KEARS,'  '
R/A71'-TI'I~IIi'\ID_I_,U "  _ --
 
BANGALORE-'S60. 094;
 - - V  PETITIONERS

_  MANAGER
 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE

A  C_c>M.I°ANY LIMITED

REGD AND HEAD OFFICE
AT NEW ENDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING

'"'~.._No.87, MGROAD, FORT,
-  MUMBAI--4OO 001.

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE



COMPANY LIMITED
H FLOOR, GOPAL COMPLEX
No.47, BAZAR STREET,
YESHWANTHPUR,
BANGALORE-560 022.  
 RESPONDEINITS.

THIS W.P. Is FILED UNDER ARTICLES 233 &"2;*27fC;E ' I-

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING  TO

THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE -"I'HEPENSION I" I

BENEFITS OF THE DECEASED ,’SAD’HS,HIVAL%H.IN”‘T’HE.

NAME OF THE FIRST PETITTONER,’ BY”CDNS,IDEREN(}~–TFiTi

REPRESENTATION DATED 10.5.2010′”CyIVEN’V_TO-THE’ 2ND’

RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURES–D~.AND ‘

TI-IIS W.P. COMING ON .PRLY’.’ H_EARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE,.THE,..EOL.I;OWINO: ” ”

Counsel for the
petitiofigrgg a major son of the

deceased the no_Ininee7and if that is so, 2″ petitioner

‘~ cO_mp1y”wi–th*the requirements as set out in the

Annexure–C of the 21101

responden’t4?N’ew India Assurance Company Limited,

‘*.,where” deceased was working. In the absence of

any number of representations by the

I wpetitioners is of no consequence.

In the result, writ petition is rejected, reserving

liberty to the 2nd petitioner to comply

requirements of letter Annexure~C and if i-

a fortnight, I have no reason t;oA»Vb_e1ie’ie”ith:é;t»’ tI1e’:~_2*?<¥uu

respondent-The New India

would not consider the Vsairze pass "orders in"

accordance with law.

$3!

TL.