1003WP5739.11-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5739 OF 2011
PETITIONER :- Sumitra Wd/o. Chokhelal Pandharam, aged
about 60 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. Pirkipur
Mondha, Kamptee, District Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1] The State Bank of India, through its
Regional Manager, Regional Office,
Kingsway, Post Bag No.37, Nagpur.
2] Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
Chhaoni Branch, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.C.S.Dhore, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms Priyanka Verma, counsel h/f Mr.S.N.Kumar,
counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 10.03.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent-State Bank of India to give pensionary benefits ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2017 00:24:17 ::: 1003WP5739.11-Judgment 2/4 to the petitioner, on account of the death of her deceased son, who was an employee of the respondent-bank. By amending the writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that rule 3 of the memorandum dated 20/08/1988, issued by the Central Board is violative of rule 9(7) and rule 23(5) of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules. The petitioner has also challenged rule 3 as being discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India.
2. The son of the petitioner was employed by the respondent- bank on 03/12/1988 on temporary basis. The services of the son of the petitioner were made permanent on 02/03/1990. The son of the petitioner unfortunately expired with about 13 years of service with the respondent-bank as a sweeper, on 04/02/2003. The son of the petitioner was a bachelor. The petitioner sought for the pensionary benefits due to the death of her son, but the respondent-bank informed that as the petitioner's son was unmarried, the petitioner would not be entitled to pension, as pension was not provided by the rules to the mother, but was only provided for the widow, son and daughter of the deceased. Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondent- bank to grant pension in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2017 00:24:17 :::
1003WP5739.11-Judgment 3/4
3. When this petition came up for hearing before this court on 03/07/2012, this court expressed that the court would appreciate if the respondent bank, in the peculiar facts of the case deviates from its policy for good reason and includes the mother of a bachelor employee who dies in harness in the list of persons entitled to pension. This court asked the respondent to take a sympathetic view in the matter by bearing the object and purpose of family pension in the mind.
4. In pursuance of our order dated 03/07/2012, the respondent-bank has acted fairly and has come up with a policy on 04/03/2015 deciding to grant pensionary benefits to a mother when the deceased employee does not leave behind him/her a widow or a child. It is stated in the circular that the circular would be made effective from the date of ECCB approval i.e. 25/02/2015. Thus, the respondent-bank has not only taken a decision to grant family pension to a mother when an employee does not leave behind a widow or a child, but has also decided to implement the said circular with effect from 25/02/2015. The challenge made by the petitioner to rule 3 would not survive in view of the decision of the respondent-bank to grant family pension to the mother, in the circumstances mentioned in the circular dated 04/03/2015.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2017 00:24:17 :::
1003WP5739.11-Judgment 4/4
5. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-bank to release the family pension in favour of the petitioner with effect from 25/02/2015. The arrears of pensionary benefits should be released in favour of the petitioner within four months and the respondent-bank should also pay the monthly family pension to the petitioner regularly. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2017 00:24:17 :::