Smt Geeta Devi Chauhan Wife Of Late ... vs Uco Bank (2023:Rj-Jp:24860)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5218 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:24860]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17623/2019

Smt Geeta Devi Chauhan Wife Of Late Shri Shivram Singh
Chauhan, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of House No. 265-
Bajaj Nagar, Outside Mewari Gate, Near Krishi Upaj Mandi,
Beawar District Ajmer And At Present-55 Jawahar Nagar, Udaipur
Road, Beawar, District Ajmer.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       Uco Bank, Head Office, 10, B.t.m. Sarani, Kolkata-
         700001 Through Its Managing Director And Ceo.
2.       The Chief Officer (Pension), Uco Bank, Pension Block, 3-4,
         D.d. Block Sector-I, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064.
3.       The Deputy General Manager, Uco Bank, Zonal Office,
         Khailand Market, Ajmer - 305001
4.       Branch Manager, Uco Bank, Shanti Tower, Beawar, District
         Ajmer -305901
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ashish Saksena for
                                 Mr. S.K. Saksena
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. C.P. Sharma



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                      Order

22/09/2023

1. Present petition was filed seeking the following relief:

"(i) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for declaring the petitioner entitled for grant of family pension after death of her husband, Late Shri- Shivram Singh Chauhan, on 12.02.2013 as per the Regulations of 1995 with consequential relief of grant of same along with arrears thereon w.e.f. 12.02.2013 till date with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of eligibility till the date of actual payment.

(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash any adverse order, if passed, during

[2023:RJ-JP:24860] (2 of 5) [CW-17623/2019]

pendency of the writ petition frustrating the cause of the petition or any order earlier passed and not communicated to the petitioner.

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Cost of the writ petition."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband

of the petitioner was employed with the respondent-UCO Bank

from 01.03.1988 and remained in service till his superannuation

on 31.03.2010. The Pension Disbursement Order was also passed

in favour of the husband of the petitioner on 13.04.2010. The

husband of the petitioner expired on 12.02.2013. Learned counsel

for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, being the widow of

the deceased employee, was entitled to family pension as per the

provisions of UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995

(for short "Regulations of 1995") and accordingly the petitioner

applied for family pension vide application dated 06.05.2013, but

the same was denied on 22.05.2013 on the premise that the

husband of the petitioner had not nominated anyone to entitle

them to receive family pension, rather the husband of the

petitioner, vide letter dated 11.02.2010, had requested removal of

nomination of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously disputed the

authenticity of the letter dated 11.02.2010 and has relied upon

UCO Bank communication dated 24.12.2014, wherein while

answering the petitioner's query regarding available nomination by

her husband with UCO bank under Right To Information Act, 2005,

it was specifically stated by the respondent-UCO Bank that no

letter regarding nomination was found in the service record of the

[2023:RJ-JP:24860] (3 of 5) [CW-17623/2019]

husband of petitioner. The relevant part of communication dated

24.12.2014 is reproduced as under:

"laEcf/kr foHkkx us] vius i= fnukda 13@12@2014 ds }kjk ges lwpuk nh gS fd ^+vfHkys[kks ds leh{kk djus ij ,l],l]pkSgku ds }kjk fn;k x;k uksfeus"ku dk dksbZ i= mUgsa ugha feyk ."

4. Learned counsel further submits that even for the sake of

argument if it is assumed that the letter dated 11.02.2010 was

valid, the same does not disqualify the petitioner from receiving

the family pension as per Regulation 39 and 40(a) of the

Regulations of 1995 as the petitioner was the legally wedded wife

of the deceased employee and after his death became his widow

and the petitioner is till date the widow of the deceased employee

as the petitioner has not remarried. Learned counsel further

contends that mere litigation between the petitioner and her

husband during his lifetime cannot be a ground to deny the family

pension to her, especially since she is legally eligible to receive the

same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance

on Apex Court judgment of Violet Issaac & Ors. Vs. Union of

India & Ors. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 725 and judgment of

Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Radhamony Amma Vs.

State of Kerala reported in 2002(1) LLN 295 (Kerala).

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-UCO Bank,

duly assisted by the Manager, submits that the husband of the

petitioner, Shri S.S Chauhan, vide letter dated 11.02.2010 had

requested the respondent-UCO Bank to remove the nomination of

petitioner Smt. Geeta Devi from pension, PF, gratuity and any

bank benefit as he does not wish to add any person as a nominee

in his bank account. The said request was accepted by the Bank

and vide office order dated 25.02.2010, the name of petitioner

[2023:RJ-JP:24860] (4 of 5) [CW-17623/2019]

was specifically removed from the nomination and since there was

no nomination, the family pension could not be released in favour

of the petitioner as per Regulation 51 of the Regulations of 1995.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, scanned

the record of the writ petition and considered the judgments cited

at Bar.

7. It is an incontrovertible fact that the petitioner was the lawful

spouse of the deceased, Mr. S.S. Chauhan, who served as an

employee of UCO Bank from 01.03.1988 to 31.03.2010. The

petitioner, being the widow, is entitled for Family Pension as per

Regulation 39 read with Regulation 40 (a) of the Regulations of

1995. The sole ground to deny the petitioner the benefit of Family

Pension is attributed to the letter dated 11.02.2010. However, the

contention of the respondent-UCO Bank is entirely untenable as it

is an admitted and undisputed position that the petitioner is the

widow of the deceased Mr. S.S. Chauhan, duly entitled to receive

family pension as per Regulation 39 read with Regulation 40 (a) of

the Regulations of 1995. Further, the contention of the

respondent-UCO Bank gets negated for the reasons that the RTI

communication dated 24.12.2014 specifically clarifies that Mr. S.S.

Chauhan had not filed any nomination letter.

8. In view of the above, considering that the petitioner is the

widow of the deceased employee and relying upon judgments of

Violet Issaac (supra) and Radhamony Amma (supra), this

Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition.

9. The respondent-UCO Bank is directed release the due

amount, without interest, within a period of 60 days from receipt

of copy of this order. If the due amount is not released within the

[2023:RJ-JP:24860] (5 of 5) [CW-17623/2019]

said time period, the due amount shall carry an interest @9% per

annum.

10. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. Pending

application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

JKP/96

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)