Supreme Court of India
STATE BANK OF PATIALAversusMANJEET
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 206
- Decided
- 15 February 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The daughter is not entitled to family pension because the option was not exercised within the prescribed time and the mother did not refund the contribution, rendering the High Court’s order untenable.
Summary
The father, an employee of State Bank of Patiala, died in service and his widow was appointed on compassionate grounds. When the daughter turned 18, she applied for family pension under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 and the 1995 Pension Regulations. The bank rejected the claim, stating that the option to claim family pension had to be exercised within 120 days of the regulations' notified date and that the widow, being alive, was the only eligible recipient. The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the daughter's writ petition and directed the bank to grant the pension. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the daughter had neither exercised the option within the prescribed period nor refunded the contribution as required by Regulation 3, and that the widow had opted for her own pension, not a family pension. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the daughter is entitled to family pension when the option to claim was not exercised within the 120‑day period prescribed by Regulation 3.
- Whether the High Court erred in finding that the daughter was not intimated about the option to claim family pension.
- Interpretation of Regulation 40(3) regarding payment of family pension to a minor through a guardian.
Subjects
family pensiondependent daughteroption periodState Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) ActPension Regulationsguardian of minorwrit petitionHigh CourtSupreme Court
Judgment
+ [2008] 2 S.C.R. 977
STATE BANK OF PATIALA A
v.
MANJEET
(Civil Appeal No.1319 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 15, 2008
B
(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):
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 notjustified 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
.... ...,,
J
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
..
F
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
family pension. Under the circumstances, High Court was
-
Ii:
y- - ~
not justified in directing grant of family pension to the
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
(Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (in short the 'Act') the Regulations E
were framed. The Regulations provide for establishment and
maintenance of pension funds for the benefit of the employees
of the State Bank of Patiala. The regulations were published in
the Official Gazette on 23.3.1996 and were operative w.e.f.
~ ... ~ 29.9.1995. F
I On 12.8.2003 respondent attained majority. On 16.9.2003
she applied for family pension of late Jai Singh. On 1.10.2003
the appellant-Bank rejected the claim for family pension on
several grounds; (i) the family pension was payable to the widow G
till the death or her re-marriage and (ii) the option for pension
)' was required to be made by eligible dependent of the deceased
employee within 120 days from the notified date i.e. on or before
20.7 .1996. Another representation was made on 28.10.2003.
Again on 11.11.2003 the claim was rejected stating that since
H
•
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
A her mother was alive only she was eligible for grant of family
pension provided she had completed the required formalities
within the prescribed period.
3. A writ petition was filed for a direction to the appellant-
Bank to give family pension to the respondent. The Division
B Bench, as noted above, allowed the writ petition holding that
family pension was illegally denied to her.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant-Bank submitted that Regulation 3 of the Regulations
c deals with cases of employees who had already died. It was
also submitted that in terms of Regulation 40 (3) where family
pension is granted under the regulation 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 Birmati. Only for the first time such a
0
stand had been taken in the writ petition. Further more, the
respondent admitted that she was living with Smt. Birmati.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
supported the judgment of the High Court.
E
Regulation 3 reads as follows:
"(1) To exercise an option in writing within one hundred
and twenty days from the notified date to become member
of the Fund; and
F (2) To refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said
period of one hundred and twenty days specified in Clause
(B) the entire amount of the Bank's contribution to the
Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon together
with a further simple interest at the· rate of six per cent, per
G annum on the said amount from the date of settlement of
the Provident Fund account till the date of refund of the
aforesaid amount to the Bank."
6. Regulation 40(3) is also relevant and reference has
H already been made to that provision. In terms of Regulation 3
STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. MANJEET 981
[PASAYAT, J.]
J- the option was required to be exercised within a period of 120 A
days from the notified date and there was a requirement of
refunding the contribution within 60 days after the aforesaid 120
days period.
7. Respondent's mother opted for her own pension and
not for family pension. B
~ Regulation 40(3) reads as follows:
"Where family pension is granted under this regulation to
a minor, it shall be payable to the guardian on behalf of the
minor'' C
8. In Jai Singh B. Chauhan and Ors. v. Punjab National
Bank and Ors. (2005 (6) sec 262), it was observed as follows:
"6. For the purpose of adjudicating the dispute few
provisions in the Regulations need to be noted. D
7. "Notified Date" is defined in Regulation 2 as follows:
"notified date" means the date on which these
regulations are published in the official Gazette;"
8. In terms of Regulation 1, the Regulations were E
deemed to have come into force on the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette.
9. Regulation 3, so far as relevant reads as follows:
"3. These regulations shall apply to employees who,- F
xxx xxx xxx
(3) (a) are in the service of the Bank before the notified
date and continue to be in the service of the Bank on
or after the notified date; and G
(b) exercise ,an option in writing within one hundred
and twenty days from the notified date to become
member of the Fund; and
(c) authorize the trust of the Provident Fund of the H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
A Bank to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank ~
alongwith the interest accrued thereon to the credit
of the Fund constituted for the purpose under
regulation 5."
10. As per Regulation 3 (3)(b) option was to be exercised
B in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the
notified date to become member of the fund.
11. Regulation 3 (3)(c) is also of considerable importance.
It required transfer of the entire contribution of the Bank
c alongwith interest accrued thereon to the credit of the fund
constituted for the purpose under Regulation 5, and
authorized trust of from the amount of the Provident Fund
of the Bank to effect the transfer.
Xx xx
D
14. In Mis. Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India and
others (1994 (5) SCC 198) a three-Judge Bench of this
Court held as follows:
"17. In the present case indisputably the mode of
E publication prescribed by Section 25(1) was
complied with. The notification was published in the
official Gazette on the 13.2.1986. As to the effect of
the publication in the official Gazette, this Court held
(Srinivasan case 1987 (1) sec 658,672: AIR 1987
F SC 1059, 1067):
"Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate
legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication,
such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if
reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not
G prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate
legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode
of publication, it will take effect only when it is
published through the customarily recognized official
channel, namely, the Official Gazette or some other
H reasonable mode of publication.
STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. MANJEET 983
[PASAYAT, J.]
18. We, therefore, see no substance in the contention that A
notwithstanding the publication in the Official Gazette there
was yet a failure to make the law known and that, therefore,
the notification did not acquire the elements of
operativeness and enforceability. This contention of Shri
Ganesh is unacceptable." B
9. The High Court was not justified in saying 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 family pension. C
10. Above being the position, the High Court was not
justified in directing grant of family pension to the respondent.
In view of above, the impugned judgment of the High Court is
set aside. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to
0
costs.
S.K.S. Appeal allowed.
- )'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "family pension"Sign in to search