Patna High Court
Sapna Suman vs The State Bank Of India on 12 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.420 of 2021
With
Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23475 of 2018
======================================================
Sapna Suman D/o Late Kanak Lal Ram, R/o Naya Bazar, Kaswa Gola, Ghat
Lane, P.O. - Naya Bazar, P.S. - Tatarpur, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Bank of India through its Chief Manager, Patna.
2. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Patna.
3. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Patna.
4. The Regional Manager (Region-I), State Bank of India, Bhagalpur.
5. The Branch Manager, Tatarpur Branch, State Bank of India, Bhagalpur.
6. Lalita Devi, W/o Mahavir Prasad, D/o Kulesh Ram, R/o Village - Bhagaiya
Kauri Kuthari, P.S.- Meharma, Godda, Jharkhand, presently residing at Naya
Bazar, Kaswa Gola, Ghat Lane, P.O. - Naya Bazar, P.S. Tatarpur, District -
Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Paswan
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Namrata Mishra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA)
Date : 12-05-2022
Reg.: Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2021
The present Interlocutory application has been
filed for condoning the delay of 103 days, which has
taken place in filing of the present appeal.
2. Considering the averments made in the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.420 of 2021 dt.12-05-2022
present petition, we are of the view that sufficient
cause has been shown so as to condone the delay in
filing the appeal.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2021 stands allowed.
Reg.: L.P.A. No. 420 of 2021.
3. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been
filed against the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 23475 of
2018.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the writ
petitioner i.e. the appellant herein had filed a writ
petition for directing the respondent authorities to
grant pension and other benefits in favour of the
appellant herein and her sister.
5. It is the case of the appellant herein that
the father of the appellant, who was working as Class-
III employee in the State Bank of India, died on
01.09.2012. The mother of the appellant namely Meera
Mathur had pre-deceased her husband and expired in
the year 2004. After the death of the father of the
appellant herein, she and her sister had approached
the Respondent Bank for grant of compassionate
appointment as also for payment of the post retiral
benefits. It is stated that the respondent authorities,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.420 of 2021 dt.12-05-2022
however, started making payment of pension in favour
of one Lalita Devi apart from making payment of the
gratuity amount to her. As far as the Provident fund
amount is concerned, it is stated that the same was
paid to the appellant and her sister in the ration of
30% each whereas the said Lalita Devi was paid 40%
of the total amount of the Provident fund.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that the appellant herein had filed a
representation before the respondent authorities to
stop payment of pension in favour of the aforesaid
Lalita Devi since the father of the appellant herein had
not remarried after the death of her mother in the year
2004, however, no heed was paid to by the respondent
authorities. It is thus submitted that the pension of the
aforesaid Lalita Devi should be stopped and the same
should be paid to the appellant herein and her sister.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Bank
has submitted by referring to the counter affidavit filed
in the writ proceedings that father of the appellant
herein namely Kanak Lal Ram joined the service of
Bank on the post of Clerk on 14.01.1986. He had
nominated his first wife Smt. Mira Mathur (mother of
appellant) for terminal benefit such as P.F./ Gratuity/
Patna High Court L.P.A No.420 of 2021 dt.12-05-2022
Ex-Gratia/ Insurance etc. However, his first wife died
on 22.01.2004 and thereupon Kanak Lal Ram during
his life time changed his nomination on 12.04.2007 in
favour of Smt. Lalita Devi (Respondent No. 6), second
wife- 40%, Sapna Suman (the appellant herein) 30%
and Sandhya Suman (appellant's sister)- 30%. The said
Kanak Lal Ram (appellant's father) also died on
01.09.2010 while serving on the post of Clerk. Smt.
Lalita Devi, the second wife made an application to the
Bank for her appointment on compassionate ground in
the service of Bank which was received at the Branch
on 20.09.2010, but as per the express instructions of
Bank, payment of Ex-gratia was applicable in place of
compassionate appointment, hence a sum of
Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to her.
8. However, it is submitted that the total
terminal benefit of Rs. 21,10,234/- was distributed
among the legal heirs of Late Kanak Lal Ram as per his
nomination, after adjustment/ recovery of the
outstanding loan of Rs. 9,37, 835/- (availed by the late
employee).
9. It has also been submitted that the terminal
benefits have been distributed in the ratio of 40%:
30%: 30% in between the aforesaid Lalita Devi, the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.420 of 2021 dt.12-05-2022
Appellant herein i.e. Sapna Suman and her sister
namely Sandhya Suman. The details of the terminal
benefits paid to the aforesaid three ladies have been
mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent Bank in the writ proceedings. It is further
submitted that once the terminal benefits were
received by the nominees, then internal family dispute
started between Smt. Lalita Devi (second wife) and
Sapna Suman ( daughter from first wife) and Sandhya
Suman (daughter from first wife). The two daughters
fought over the retirement benefits and made
representations and complaints to the Bank at various
levels though were fully aware that the entire
distribution was made in accordance with the
nomination of their late father and Bank's instructions
and guidelines. It is further contended that though the
appellant herein and her sister are fully aware of the
nomination made by their late father and have also
received their share in terms of the nomination and
their mutual consent but they have made several
representations making false and frivolous demand of
the retiral dues (PF, Gratuity, Pension, Ex-gratia and
Insurance) of their late father. It is stated that family
pension has been paid to Smt. Lalita Devi, wife of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.420 of 2021 dt.12-05-2022
late employee in accordance with law whereas the
appellant is not entitled for family pension being the
married daughter.
10. The learned counsel for the Respondent
Bank has also submitted that several letters written by
the appellant herein are on record of the Bank wherein
aforesaid Lalita Devi has been referred to by the
appellant herein to be her step mother. Lastly it is
submitted that though the appellant is not eligible for
grant of family pension in as much as she was married
at the material time, but on account of the nomination
made by the father of the appellant herein, the
Respondent Bank has been considerate enough to
apportion the retiral dues in between the second wife
of the deceased employee as also the daughters of the
deceased employee i.e. the appellant herein and her
sister.
11. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and considering the stand
taken by the respondent Bank, as has been detailed
herein above in the preceding paragraphs apart from
the fact that in case the appellant herein is disputing
the remarriage of her father, appropriate remedy lies
elsewhere, we do not find any infirmity in the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.420 of 2021 dt.12-05-2022
impugned order dated 04.03.2021, hence, the present
appeal stands dismissed sans any merit.
(Rajan Gupta, J)
( Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Tiwary/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date N/A
