Cannot Disregard Express Terms Of Pension Scheme Due To Beneficial Nature: Delhi High Court Refuses Family Pension To Bank Employee's Widow
The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the benefit of family pension scheme to the widow of a deceased Bank of Maharashtra employee, observing that the beneficial nature of a welfare scheme does not permit courts to disregard its express terms and conditions.Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the plea filed by Savitri Devi, who had sought directions to the Bank to grant her family pension...
The Delhi High Court has refused to extend the benefit of family pension scheme to the widow of a deceased Bank of Maharashtra employee, observing that the beneficial nature of a welfare scheme does not permit courts to disregard its express terms and conditions.
Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the plea filed by Savitri Devi, who had sought directions to the Bank to grant her family pension under the pension scheme introduced pursuant to the Settlement/Joint Note dated April 27, 2010.
The Court held that although the petitioner was eligible to opt for the scheme, she had failed to establish that she exercised the option within the prescribed time.
“The Court is mindful that family pension is a beneficial and welfareoriented measure intended to secure financial support for the family of a deceased employee. Nevertheless, the beneficial character of a scheme does not mean the Court can disregard its express terms. While welfare provisions merit a purposive and liberal construction, such interpretation cannot extend to rewriting the scheme itself or converting a time-bound, one-time option into an unrestricted and perpetual entitlement.
Where the scheme expressly stipulates the manner of exercise of the option, prescribes a cut-off date, and imposes attendant financial conditions, those requirements constitute integral components of the scheme. A writ court cannot direct admission into the scheme in disregard of such conditions, particularly where the family has already received the terminal benefits available under the provident fund regime,” the Court observed.
The petitioner's husband, Ramesh Chand, had joined the Bank in 1985 and died in service in February 2006. Following his death, the Bank settled the provident fund and gratuity benefits payable to the family. Subsequently, pursuant to a settlement reached in 2010, the Bank extended a one-time opportunity to serving employees, retired employees and families of deceased employees to opt for the pension scheme, subject to specified conditions.
Under the Bank's circular dated August 18, 2010, families of eligible deceased employees were required to submit the prescribed option form by October 18, 2010. However, the petitioner claimed to have submitted the form only on March 2, 2011, and contended that the Bank had failed to inform her of the amount payable under the scheme.
Rejecting the plea, the Court noted that the option form relied upon by the petitioner was itself dated after the cut-off date and did not bear any acknowledgment from the Bank establishing its submission.
“In the absence of compliance with this foundational requirement, no corresponding obligation upon the Bank to process the claim or determine the payable amount can be said to arise,” it held.
The Court also found that the internal correspondence exchanged between the Bank's branch and head office in January 2014 did not amount to acceptance of the petitioner's claim or condonation of delay.
“It merely places the matter before the Head Office for verification. It reflects uncertainty in the Bank's records rather than confirmation of the Petitioner's claim,” it said.
While acknowledging that the Bank ought to have acted with greater clarity in 2014, the Court held that administrative lapses could not create or enlarge an entitlement unavailable under the governing circular.
“A claim to family pension must derive its legitimacy from the applicable scheme itself and not from procedural omissions in its implementation. The Court, therefore, cannot elevate an internal correspondence or a request for further documentation into a definitive determination conferring a substantive right to family pension,” it said.
The Court further held that the plea suffered from gross delay and laches, and the petitioner had taken no meaningful steps between the correspondence exchanged in 2014 and the filing of the petition in 2025.
As such, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Appearance: Ms. Saahila Lamba and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. V.K Gupta, Ms. Kaushiki Kashyap, Advocates for Respondents
Case title: Savitri Devi v. Bank Of Maharashtra And Anr
Case no.: W.P.(C) 10777/2025