Disabled Daughter Eligible For Family Pension Despite Omission In Declaration; Hyper-Technical Approach Cannot Deny Benefit: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a major daughter who is physically crippled and unable to earn a living is eligible for family pension under Rule 23(i) of the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules, even if her name was not specifically indicated in the declaration form submitted by the deceased employee at the time of retirement. The Court added that...
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a major daughter who is physically crippled and unable to earn a living is eligible for family pension under Rule 23(i) of the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules, even if her name was not specifically indicated in the declaration form submitted by the deceased employee at the time of retirement. The Court added that a hyper-technical approach by the Bank in denying such benefit cannot be sustained.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar was hearing an appeal filed by the State Bank of India against a judgment of the Single Judge which had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent, quashed the Bank's communication rejecting her claim, and directed the Bank to process and sanction family pension in her favour within two months.
Background
The respondent, Smt. Balbir Kaur, is the daughter of late Joginder Singh, who was reemployed by the State Bank of India as a Security Guard in 1971 after serving in the Army. He attained the age of superannuation in 1994 and was sanctioned pension under the Pensionary Regulations of the Bank. Singh passed away in 2010, leaving behind his wife, who had pre-deceased him, and his crippled daughter, the respondent in the instant case.
The respondent staked her claim for family pension under Rule 23(i) of the Pensionary Regulations on the ground that she was physically crippled/disabled and had been rendered unable to earn a living. She supported her claim with a medical certificate indicating the disability as congenital and existing since 1975.
The Bank rejected her claim on two grounds: first, that as per the declaration form submitted by the deceased employee at the time of retirement, the respondent was not indicated as a dependent legal heir and second, that she did not fall within the eligibility criteria laid down in Rule 23 of the Pensionary Regulations, as the disability had not manifested before retirement or death in harness.
Aggrieved, the respondent challenged the communication before the writ Court, which allowed her petition. The Bank then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.
Court's Observations:
The Division Bench, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, held that the judgment passed by the writ Court is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference.
The Court noted that it is not in dispute that the respondent is a crippled daughter of late Joginder Singh and is not in a position to earn her living. On the issue of omission of her name in the declaration form, the Court observed,
“However, from reading of the pension payment order, we find that the mistake committed by late Shri. Joginder Singh, in not mentioning the name of his crippled daughter appears to be bonafide. He seems to have omitted her name on the understanding that during the lifetime of his wife, her daughter might not be entitled to family pension.”
Examining the eligibility criteria under Rule 23 of the Pensionary Regulations, the Court extracted the relevant provision which provides that family pension shall be payable to a son or daughter for life if he/she is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years, provided that only that disability which manifests itself in the child before retirement or death of the employee while in service shall be taken into account.
The Court then examined the respondent's case against this provision and held,
“When we examine the case of the respondent as per above regulations, we find that she fulfills all the eligibility requirements for Family Pension. There is no dispute that she is the daughter of the deceased employee. She is crippled for life and is rendered unfit to earn a living, as is clearly certified by the Medical Authority. The disability, as is apparent from the certificate of the Medical Authority, has been assessed as 'congenital' and existing since 1975.”
The Court further observed that the disability had manifested in the respondent in the year 1975, long before the deceased employee retired on 31.03.1994. Rejecting the Bank's contention, the Court stated,
“It seems that the appellant-Bank took a hyper-technical approach and denied Family Pension to the respondent, primarily, for the reasons that her late father had inadvertently omitted to mention her name in the declaration form submitted at the time of seeking of post retiral benefits. We could have understood if there was a dispute with regard to the relationship of the respondent with late Shri. Joginder Singh the deceased employee.”
The Court also noted that the respondent is receiving Family Pension from the Army having been accepted as a daughter of the deceased, further corroborating her eligibility.
The Division Bench thua concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. The judgment of the writ Court was upheld, and the Bank was directed to process the Family Pension case of the respondent and sanction the same in her favour as admissible under the Rules.
Case Title: State Bank of India Vs Smt. Balbir Kaur
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)