Stop ‘technical’ excuses, give disabled daughter pension: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court to SBI

The bench heard the matter on April 21.

The order added that it is pertinent to mention here that the deceased employee retired on superannuation in 1994, whereas the disability in the respondent was in existence and had manifested in the year 1975.

Case of family pension to physically crippled daughter

The petitioner, State Bank of India (SBI), has filed a petition challenging the 2025 single-judge order directing the bank to process the family pension in favour of the daughter of an employee who passed away.

The respondent was the daughter of the late retired army veteran who was re-employed by the SBI as a security guard in 1971 and retired in 1994, and was a sanctioned pension under the Pensionary Regulations of the bank.

Following his death in 2010, the daughter, who is physically crippled and unable to earn a living, staked her claim for a family pension. The wife of the late employee had already passed away.

The daughter claimed the family pension under Rule 23(i) of the Pensionary Regulations on the ground that she was a physically crippled/ disabled daughter and had been rendered unable to earn a living. She supported her claim with a medical certificate indicating the disability as congenital and existing since 1975.

The bank first considered the claim of the respondent-daughter, but rejected the same by an order in April 2020 on the grounds that, as per the records of the Bank and the declaration form submitted by the deceased employee, she was not a dependent legal heir of the deceased employee, and also that she did not fall within the eligibility criteria laid down in Rule 23 of the Pensionary Regulations.

Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-daughter challenged this order in the high court in 2023, where a single judge allowed her plea. Then, the bank moved before the division bench with a present plea.

‘Daughter fulfils the eligibility’

• It is not in dispute that the respondent, a crippled daughter of the late retired employee of the appellant bank, is not in a position to earn a living.
• It is true that at the time of processing the case for post-retirement benefits, a declaration was submitted by him indicating her wife as the dependent entitled to family pension.
• The name of the respondent, a crippled daughter, was not specifically indicated.
• However, from reading the pension payment order, we find that the mistake was committed by him, in not mentioning the name of his crippled daughter, which appears to be bona fide.
• He seems to have omitted her name on the understanding that during the lifetime of his wife, her daughter might not be entitled to a family pension.
• Coming to the norms of eligibility prescribed under Rule 23 of the Pensionary Regulations, we find that a major son/daughter of a deceased pensioner of the bank is entitled to pension if he/she fulfils certain conditions.

• The first condition was that he/she is physically crippled/disabled to render him/her unable to earn a living, and the second condition said that the disability has manifested itself in the child before retirement or death in harness.
• When we examine the case of the respondent as per the regulations, we find that she fulfils all the eligibility requirements for a family pension.

‘Daughters’ disability has existed since 1975’

• There is no dispute that she is the daughter of the deceased employee.
• She is crippled for life and is rendered unfit to earn a living, as is clearly certified by the Medical Authority.
• The disability, as is apparent from the certificate of the medical authority, has been assessed as “congenital‟ and has existed since 1975.
• It cannot be said by the bank that the disability, which has crippled the respondent, manifested only after the retirement of the deceased employee.