Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, May 13: High Court has ruled that the object and aim of pension to a disabled person is to ensure security and financial assistance to those who are unable to sustain themselves.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while allowing the plea of a lady seeking family pension said the grant of pension to disabled person aims to promote equity, inclusion and social welfare by ensuring a safety net for individuals with disabilities.
“The provisions governing the grant of family pension to a disabled person cannot be interpreted in a narrow sense, so as to exclude genuine claims. Such provisions have to be interpreted liberally so that the benefit of this essential security measure is extended to all deserving and eligible persons”, Justice Dhar held.
The ruling has been passed in a petition filed by one Balbir Kour challenging the communication dated 23.04.2020, issued by Regional Manager State Bank of India (SBI) to the Branch Manager SBI, Barzulla, whereby her request for grant of family pension has been rejected.
The factum of the case is that the father of the petitioner-Kour, a retired Army personnel, was re-employed by the Respondent Bank as a Guard. He joined the service of the Respondent Bank as Guard on 04.08.1971 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.1994, whereafter the Respondent Bank sanctioned pension in his favour.
Joginder Singh passed away on 16.06.2010 and thereafter the petitioner-Kour, who claims to be suffering from 100% permanent disability, applied for Family Pension to the Respondent Bank. It is pertinent to mention here that the wife of Joginder Singh, who happened to be mother of the petitioner-Kour, pre-deceased Joginder Singh and she was not alive at the time when Joginder Singh died.
On raising an objection by the Bank that she has approached the court at belated staged as such the petition suffers from latches, the court has taken into account the fact that the petitioner-Kour is a crippled person who depends completely upon others. In such circumstances it would not have been possible for the her to consult the lawyer to file writ petition immediately after issuance of impugned communication dated 23.04.2020.
“Even otherwise there in nothing on record to show as to when the impugned decision was conveyed to the her. In these circumstances, it cannot be stated that there has been any undue delay on the part of petitioner in approaching this Court. The contention of the respondents is, therefore, without any merit”, read the judgment.
The court quashed the bank’s communication and directed to process the Family Pension case of the petitioner-Kour and sanction the same in her favour as admissible under the rules within a period of two months.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
