SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal filed by the State Bank of India, upholding a single judge’s direction to grant family pension to a physically disabled woman from Budgam.
A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar found no merit in the bank’s challenge to the earlier judgment, which had quashed the bank’s 2020 communication rejecting the claim of Balbir Kaur and directed that her pension case be processed within two months.
The appeal stemmed from the bank’s refusal to grant family pension to Balbir Kaur, daughter of late Joginder Singh, a retired army personnel who later served as a security guard with the bank and retired in 1994. After his death in 2010, Kaur sought family pension on the ground that she is physically disabled and unable to earn a livelihood, supporting her claim with a medical certificate describing her condition as congenital and existing since 1975.
The bank, represented by advocate QR Shamas, had rejected the claim on two grounds—first, that the deceased employee had not mentioned his daughter as a dependent in the declaration form at the time of retirement, and second, that she did not meet the eligibility criteria under the pension rules, particularly regarding the timing of her disability.
Counsel for the respondent, Mir Majid Bashir, argued that the omission in the declaration was inadvertent and could not override the substantive entitlement of a disabled dependent daughter.
The court agreed with this position, observing that the failure of Joginder Singh to include his daughter’s name in the declaration appeared to be a bona fide omission, possibly based on the understanding that his spouse would be the primary beneficiary during her lifetime. The bench noted that there was no dispute regarding the relationship between the respondent and the deceased employee.
On the issue of eligibility, the court held that the respondent satisfied all conditions for grant of family pension. It noted that her disability was permanent, rendered her incapable of earning a living, and had manifested long before the employee’s retirement, as confirmed by medical records indicating its existence since 1975.
Rejecting the bank’s stance as overly technical, the court observed that such an approach could not be used to deny a legitimate claim, particularly when the respondent was already recognised as a dependent and receiving family pension from the Army.
“Viewed from any angle, we find no good reason or justification to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment,” the bench said while dismissing the appeal.
The ruling reaffirms that procedural omissions cannot defeat substantive rights, especially in cases involving disabled dependents seeking pensionary benefits.
