STATE BANK OF PATIALA versus MANJEET

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 977 · Decided: 15-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
.... 
J .... ...,, 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 977 
STATE BANK OF PATIALA 
v. 
MANJEET 
(Civil Appeal No.1319 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 15, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959; S. 631 
Pension Regulations; Regulations 2, 3 and 40 (3): 
A 
B 
Family Pension to dependent daughter of deceased C 
employee -
Claim of -
Held: Dependent-daughter of 
deceased employee neither exercise option to claim family 
pension within the prescribed time period nor she refunded 
the contribution in terms of Regulation 3 of Pension 
Regulations - Under the circumstances, High Court not justified D 
in directing grant of family pension to the daughter of the 
deceased employee - Family Pensi<?n - Entftlement to. 
Father of respondent, an employee of appellant-
Bank, was killed while on duty. Widow of the deceased E 
was given appointment in the bank on compassionate 
grounds. Later, in terms of S.63(2) of the State Bank of 
India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 and pursuant to 
Pension Regulations framed, respondent-daughter of the 
deceased employee applied for family pension. The 
application was rejected by the appellant-Bank on the F 
ground that option for pension was required to be 
exercised within 120 days from the notified date; and that 
since her mother was alive, only she was eligible for grant 
of family pension. Respondent had filed a writ petition, 
which was allowed by the High Court. Hence the present G 
appeal. 
Appellant-Bank contended that in terms of 
Regulation 40 (3) of the Pension Regulations where family 
977 
H 
978 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A pension is granted to a minor, it shall be payable to the 
~ 
guardian of the minor. At no point of time, not even in the 
representation, respondent had indicated about the 
alleged re-marriage of her mother, widow of deceased 
employee. Only for the first time such a stand had been 
B taken in the writ petition. -Moreover, the respondent 
admitted that she was living with her mother. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In terms of Regulation 3 the option was 
c required to be exercised within a period of 120 days from 
the notified date and there was a requirement of refunding 
the contribution within 60 days after the said period of 
120 days. Respondent's mother opted for her own 
pension and not family pension (Paras - 6 & 7) [980-H; 
-~ 
D 981-A-B] 
Jai Singh 8. Chauhan and Ors. vs. Punjab National Bank 
·~-
~ 
and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 262 and Mis. Pankaj Jain Agencies 
vs. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 5 SCC 198 - relied on. 
E 
1.2 The High Court was not justified in holding that 
there was no intimation to the respondent about the 
exercise of option. Factually also it is not correct. 
.. 
Respondent's mother was serving in the bank and in fact 
-
had exercised the option for her own pension and not for 
F family pension. Under the circumstances, High Court was 
Ii: 
not justified in directing grant of family pension to the 
y- -
~ 
respondent. (Paras - 9 & 10) [983-8-D] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1319 
of 2008. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2005 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Harayana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ 
'( 
Petition No. 19475 of 2003. 
. 
~ 
Vishnu Mehra and B.K. Satija for the Appellant. 
~
H 
STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. MANJEET 
979 
[PASAYAT, J.] 
'!'-
Sun ii Atri and Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Respondent. 
A 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ 
petition filed by the respondent and holding her to be entitled to 
B 
grant of family pension as per the provisions of State Bank of 
Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (in short the 
'Regulations'). 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
c 
Late Jai Singh, father of the respondent joined service in 
the appellant-Bank on 19.11.1985. Few months after i.e. on 
4.6.1986 he was killed while on duty. On 11.9.1986 and 
1.10.1986 · Jai Singh's widow Smt. Birmati-mother of the 
respondent was paid gratuity and provident fund of late Jai D 
Singh. On 29.12.1986 the aforesaid Smt. Birmati was given 
~ 
.... 
appointment in the appellant-Bank as Record Keeper-cum-
Godown Keeper on compassionate grounds. On 23.3.1996 _in 
exercise of power conferred by sub-Section (1) of Clause (0) 
of sub-Section (2) of Section 63 of the State Bank of India E 
(Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.