A Tribunal must address the challenged rejection order before directing pensionary benefits.

Jeebala Rao’s legal representatives sought pensionary benefits on the basis that he had served as an Ex-Shanbhogue and deemed Village Accountant.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal allowed their Application No. 6879/2018 on 6 November 2019, directing the State to examine his case and sanction or refix pension and related benefits.

The State challenged that order in a writ petition, later withdrew it with liberty to seek review, and then filed Review Application Nos. 4009–4012/2024.

The Tribunal dismissed the review applications on 22 July 2025. The State then filed the present writ petition challenging both Tribunal orders.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s 2019 order could stand when it directed reconsideration and payment of benefits without addressing the State’s prior communication rejecting the claim.

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the review applications on grounds of delay while also considering their merits.

The Court considered Rule 247-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and the Government Order dated 28 November 1979, which were relied upon in earlier litigation concerning pensionary entitlement of Ex-Shanbhogues and deemed Village Accountants.

It also referred to the Division Bench decision in W.P. No. 39634/2004 and connected cases, which had addressed such pension claims.

On delay, the Court relied on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, in considering the Tribunal’s treatment of the review applications.

The Tribunal’s 2019 order did not address the State’s earlier communication rejecting the claim, yet directed the State to reconsider the deceased employee’s case and pay benefits. The High Court therefore found that the order lacked proper consideration of the relevant record and was passed without application of mind.

As to the review applications, the Court held that if the Tribunal concluded that delay was not sufficiently explained, it could dismiss the applications on that ground; it had erred by rejecting them for delay while also discussing their merits.

The Court did not decide whether the respondents were ultimately entitled to pensionary benefits; it remitted the application for fresh consideration.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s orders dated 6 November 2019 and 22 July 2025, restored Application No. 6879/2018, and directed the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal to reconsider it in accordance with law within six months.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25 November 2026, without awaiting notice.