Smt. Gangamma v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24789 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE D K KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.165, 4TH BLOCK, 4TH STAGE, 4TH MAIN, NEAR HCG HOSPITAL BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560079

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NITHIN B M.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, ROOM NO.322, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶2DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL SECREATRY, ROOM NO. 709, 7TH FLOOR M.S.BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEDHI BENGALURU – 560001.

¶3DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTARTIVE REFORMS REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY

by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, ACCOUNTS - I, ROOM NO.25, GROUND FLOOR VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001.

¶4DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (ADMINISTRATION -3) ROOM NO. 454, 4TH FLOOR M.S.BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEDHI BENGALURU - 560001

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 12/06/2026 ISSUED BY THE R3 HEREIN AT ANNX-A AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner-wife of deceased Sri.D.K.Kempenna is before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs: A. To issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned endorsement dated 12.06.2026 issued by the Respondent No.3 herein at Annexure-A

B. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the representation

dated 05.06.2026 given by the petitioner herein and as depicted in the endorsement dated

12.06.2026 at Annexure.A

C. Allow this writ petition with costs and

D. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.

¶2The said D.K.Kempenna was working as Group-D employee with the Government of Karnataka and retired after attaining superannuation on

15.02.2020, leaving behind his wife and the petitioner herein and her children. During the lifetime of D.K.Kampana, he had filed a suit in OS No. 468 of 2019 against Smt.Jayamma and others seeking for specific performance of agreement dated

08.05.2006. On the expiry of D.K.Kempanna, the petitioner and children of the petitioner and D.K.Kempanna were brought on record as plaintiffs No.1(A) to 1(D). The suit being one for specific performance, in order the establish the source and availability of funds, to establish the readiness and willingness of D.K.Kempanna and the family in

respect of the relief of specific performance which has been sought for, the petitioner had made an application with the respondents for issuance of copies of the salary slip to be produced in the said suit. The said request was rejected on the ground that the salary slip was personal in nature to Sri.D.K.Kempanna and could not be furnished to the petitioner. It is this endorsement which is challenged in these proceedings.

¶3The submission of Sri.Chandrachud, learned counsel for Sri.Nithin.B.M., learned counsel for the petitioner is that the salary slip is not required for any adversarial proceedings within the family or against Sri.D.K.Kempanna, it is required in order to support the case filed by D.K.Kempanna, where the petitioner has come on record as a legal heir and as such, the petitioner not having access to the salary slip otherwise than from the respondent, the salary slip ought to have been furnished to these petitioner.

¶4Sri.Mohammed Jafar Shah, learned AGA would submit that a salary slip is personal to the employee and in terms of the right to privacy, as also though the application not filed under the Right to Information Act in terms of Section 8 exceptions, the said salary slip has not been provided.

¶5Heard Sri.Chandrachud, learned counsel for Sri.Nithin.B.M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Mohammed Jafar Shar, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4. Perused papers.

¶6The short question that would arise for consideration is, whether on the expiry of the husband, if the wife were to seek for certain details including the salary slip of a deceased husband from the employer, would that be covered under the right to privacy requiring the official respondents not to furnish the document?

¶7There are various nuances to this question. If the wife were to seek for those details in order to claim

maintenance or the like, which is adversarial to the interest of the deceased employee, then obviously the same cannot be furnished since that would be covered under Right to Privacy. However, if the application has been filed and documents are sought for in order to safeguard the estate of the deceased as well, then the respondent cannot have any excuse not to furnish such documents.

¶8In the present case, in order to ascertain the veracity and the requirement of the petitioner, the petitioner had been called upon to place on record the details of the suit which had been filed, in pursuance of which, the plaint in OS No. 468 of 2019 has been placed on record which had been filed by the deceased husband of the petitioner for specific performance.

¶9A perusal of the written statement indicates that there is a denial made as regards the financial ability of the plaintiff, the deceased husband of the

petitioner. The matter being posted for evidence, it is also clear that there is a requirement for the petitioner who is one of the plaintiffs now to establish the readiness and willingness which includes the financial ability. In that view of the matter, being satisfied with the requirement of the petitioner in this particular case that the salary slip is required to safeguard the estate of the deceased employee, inasmuch as if a specific performance is granted in the said suit filed by the deceased employee during his lifetime, the benefits of the said decree of specific performance will accrue to the estate of the deceased employee, this Court is of the considered opinion that the endorsement could not have been so issued without examining these aspects. Hence this Court passes following:

ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. A certiorari is issued. The endorsement dated 12.06.2026 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-A is quashed. ii. A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 05.06.2026 at Annexure-F submitted by the petitioner and issue certified copies of the pay slips from the time the agreement of sale was entered into till the expiry of D.K.Kempanna, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

LN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3