A writ petition was filed for a direction to the appellant Bank to give family pension to the respondent.
29.9.1995.
Only for the first time such a stand had been taken in the writ petition.
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.
Few months after i.e. on 4.6.1986 he was killed while on duty.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant Bank submitted that Regulation 3 of the Regulations deals with cases of employees who had already died.
Again on 11.11.2003 the claim was rejected stating that since her mother was alive only she was eligible for grant of family pension provided she had companypleted the required formalities within the prescribed period.
On 12.8.2003 respondent attained majority.
At numberpoint of time, number even in the representation, respondent had indicated about the alleged re marriage of Birmati.
Further more, the respondent admitted that she was living with Smt.
On 23.3.1996 in exercise of power companyferred by sub Section 1 of Clause O of sub Section 2 of Section 63 of the State Bank of India Subsidiary Banks Act, 1959 in short the Act the Regulations were framed.
On 16.9.2003 she applied for family pension of late Jai Singh.
The Regulations provide for establishment and maintenance of pension funds for the benefit of the employees of the State Bank of Patiala.
On 11.9.1986 and 1.10.1986 Jai Singhs widow Smt.
1319 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
Another representation was made on 28.10.2003.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The regulations were published in the Official Gazette on 23.3.1996 and were operative w.e.f.
775/2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
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 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 numberified date i.e. on or before 20.7.1996.
On 29.12.1986 the aforesaid Smt.
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 grant of family pension as per the provisions of State Bank of Patiala Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 in short the Regulations .
Birmati mother of the respondent was paid gratuity and provident fund of late Jai Singh.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Late Jai Singh, father of the respondent joined service in the appellant Bank on 19.11.1985.
The Division Bench, as numbered above, allowed the writ petition holding that family pension was illegally denied to her.
