Sumitra Wd/O Chokhelal Pandharam vs The State Bank Of India Thr. Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 688 Bom

 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

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.

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.

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