STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MAHA LAXMI TIKOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This the instant appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the State Bank of India and its officers against judgment and order dated 06.05.2008, holding that the mother being a Class (I) legal heir under the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be excluded from the category of dependents of her son to qualify for pension. Facts in brief are that writ petitioner respondent had a son with the name of Shri Virender Kumar Tickoo who was a chronic bachelor. He was working as Senior Manager in the appellant-bank and died in harness on 28.12.2002. The case of the writ petitioner-respondent before the Writ Court was that she was the sole legal heir and was dependent upon him and, therefore, was entitled to the claim of pension admissible to the dependent family members of such an employee.

(2.) The appellant-Bank has been established by the Parliamentary statute known as the State Bank of India Act 1955. Under Section 50 of the Act, the Central Board of the appellant-Bank is competent to frame regulations for various purposes. Accordingly, the Central Board framed family pension scheme which is known as State bank of India (Family Pension) Rules. The Family Pension was introduced in the State Bank of India from 01.01.1987 by incorporating Rule 23(5) in the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules, which provide for eligibility of spouse of the employee or others, but it does not include the dependent father or mother. A copy of the Pension Fund Scheme has been placed on record as Annexure R-1 with the objections filed by the appellant-Bank. The writ petitioner-respondent has challenged the exclusion of dependent mother for the purposes of earning family pension. The learned Single Judge accepted the claim on the rationale of being Class (I) legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act and issued following directions:--

(3.) Mr. Basotra, learned counsel for the appellant-Bank has vehemently argued that, by invoking the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Succession Act, classifying the mother as Class (I) legal heir, it could not be concluded by the learned Single Judge that for that reason the mother is entitled to be included in the list of beneficiaries to earn family pension. According to the learned counsel such a rationale would be inapplicable to the employees belonging to the other castes and therefore it is an impossible proposition to accept. Mr. Basotra has also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in cases of Jodh Singh v. Union of India, 1980 AIR(SC) 2081 State of Gujarat v. Sarti Devi, 1996 AIR(SC) 937 and State of Punjab and anr v. Devinder Kour, 1999 9 SCC 12 and has then argued that the deceased employee Shri Tikoo had nominated his niece as per the record of the Bank which would exclude the mother from claiming any pension.