Dismissed¶76

State Bank of India and Anr. v. Balbir Kaur

J&K HC21 Apr 2026LPA/164/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPA 164/2025, J&K and Ladakh High Court (Srinagar), decided 21.04.2026 by Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar JJ (per Sanjeev Kumar, J). Family pension to physically disabled/crippled daughter of deceased SBI pensioner under Rule 23, State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules; bonafide omission of daughter's name in retirement declaration form; congenital disability existing since 1975, manifested before employee's superannuation on 31.03.1994; hyper-technical denial by Bank; respondent also receiving Army family pension; appeal dismissed, Single Judge's judgment upheld. Statutes: Clause 12 Letters Patent; Rule 23/Rule 23(i) SBI Employees Pension Fund Rules. No precedent cases cited.

What did the court decide?

The judgment passed by the writ Court is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by this Court in the appeal.

State Bank of India and Anr. Vs Balbir Kaur — J&K HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶76

Issue for consideration

Whether the deceased employee's failure to disclose the respondent as his daughter in the declaration form submitted at the time of his retirement disentitles her to Family Pension. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The deceased employee's omission of his crippled daughter's name from the declaration form was a bonafide mistake; he omitted her name on the understanding that during his wife's lifetime the daughter might not be entitled to family pension.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The judgment passed by the writ Court is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by this Court in the appeal.

¶32

Key takeaways

Examined against the regulations, the respondent fulfills all the eligibility requirements for Family Pension; there is no dispute that she is the daughter of the deceased employee.ratio¶64
The disability afflicting the respondent was in existence and had manifested in 1975, whereas the deceased employee retired on superannuation on 31.03.1994; therefore the Bank cannot contend that the disability manifested only after retirement, satisfying Rule 23's proviso.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal (Clause 12, Letters Patent) by State Bank of India against the Single Judge's judgment dated 30.04.2025 in WP(C) No. 2901/2023, which had quashed the Bank's communication No. HR/2020-21/284 dated 23.04.2020 and directed processing of Family Pension for the physically disabled daughter of a deceased bank pensioner. The Division Bench held that the deceased employee's omission of his crippled daughter's name from the declaration form was a bonafide mistake, that the respondent satisfied all eligibility conditions of Rule 23 of the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules — her crippling disability being congenital and existing since 1975, i.e., manifested long before the employee's superannuation on 31.03.1994 — and that the Bank's denial of Family Pension on these grounds was hyper-technical. The appeal was dismissed and the writ Court's judgment left undisturbed.

¶1

Serial No. 02 REGULAR CAUSE LIST

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

LPA 164/2025 In [WP(C) 2901/2023]

¶4

1. State Bank Of India through its Regional Manager, HR Section, Srinagar.

¶5

2. Branch Manager, State Bank of …Appellant(s) India (SBI), Barzulla, Srinagar. Through: Mr. Q.R. Shamas, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Smt. Balbir Kaur, (Physically Disabled/Crippled). D/O: Joginger Sigh, Village Arina District: Budgam.

¶8

...Respondent(s)

¶9

Through: Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE. ORDER(ORAL) 21.04.2026

¶12

Per: Sanjeev Kumar-J:

¶13

01. This appeal by the State Bank of India filed under Clause

¶14

12 of the Letters Patent of this Court is directed against an order

¶15

and judgment dated 30^th April, 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ Court”] in WP(C) No. 2901/2023

¶16

titled “Balbir Kaur Vs. State Bank of India and Anr.” whereby the writ Court has allowed the writ petition filed by

¶17

the respondent herein and issued a Writ of Certiorari quashing the communication No. HR/2020-21/284 dated

¶18

23^rd April, 2020 and directed the appellants herein to

¶19

MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.04.26

¶20

Page 1 of 7

¶21

LPA No. 164/2025

¶22

process the Family Pension case of the respondent herein and sanction the same in her favour, as admissible under the Rules, within a period of two months.

¶23

02. The impugned judgment is called in question by the appellants primarily on two counts; one that the deceased employee namely Joginder Singh had not disclosed the respondent herein as her daughter in the declaration form submitted by him at the time of his retirement and second that in terms of Rule 23 of the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules [“Pensionary Regulations”], the respondent was not eligible to claim Family Pension on the ground that the disability had not manifested before retirement or death in harness.

¶24

03. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Q.R. Shamas, learned counsel for the appellants, we deem it appropriate to state few facts which are germane to the disposal of this appeal. Late Joginder Singh, the father of the respondent who was a retired Army person was reemployed by the appellant-Bank as a Security Guard on 04.08.1971. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.1994 and was sanctioned pension under the Pensionary Regulations of the Bank.

¶25

04. Late Shri Joginder Singh passed away on 16^th June, 2010 leaving behind a crippled daughter i.e., the respondent herein. The wife of late Joginder Singh had predeceased him. The respondent herein staked her claim for

¶26

MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.04.26

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

LPA No. 164/2025

¶29

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.

¶30

05. The appellants considered the claim of the respondent but rejected the same vide communication No. HR/2020-21/284 dated 23^rd April, 2020 on the ground that as per the records of the Bank and the declaration form submitted by the deceased employee, she was not dependent legal heir of the deceased employee and also that she did not fall within the eligibility criteria laid down in the Rule 23 of the Pensionary Regulations.

¶31

06. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent herein challenged the communication dated 23^rd April, 2020 in WP(C) No. 2901/2023, which upon contest by the appellants has been allowed by the writ Court in terms of the judgment impugned before us in this appeal.

¶32

07. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the writ Court is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by us in this appeal.

¶33

08. The grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Q.R.

¶34

Shamas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants have

¶35

MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.04.26

¶36

Page 3 of 7

¶37

LPA No. 164/2025

¶38

been duly considered and dealt with by the writ Court. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a crippled daughter of late Shri. Joginder Singh, a retired employee of the appellant-Bank and is not in a position to earn her living. It is true that at the time of processing the case of late Shri. Joginder Singh for post retiral 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 of the pension payment order, we find that the mistake committed by late Shri. Joginder Singh, in not mentioning the name of his crippled daughter appears to be bonafide. He seems to have omitted her name on the understanding that during the lifetime of his wife, her daughter might not be entitled to family pension.

¶39

09. 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 fulfills the following conditions:-

¶40

(i) If he/she is physically crippled/disabled so as to render her unable to earn a living.

¶41

(ii) That the disability has manifested itself in the child before retirement or death in harness.

¶42

MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.04.26

¶43

Page 4 of 7

¶44

LPA No. 164/2025

¶45

10. The Rule has been extensively reproduced by the writ

¶46

Court. However, for facility of reference we deem it appropriate to set out the Rule below:-

¶47

Eligibility:-

¶48

(i) Spouse of the employee, if the member dies during service after putting in a minimum of one year pensionable service.

¶49

(ii) Eligible only if the deceased employee was eligible for pension. If the employee was not eligible/deprived of pension benefits, then his family will not get benefits under this scheme.

¶50

(iii) Family pension is payable.

¶51

(a) To widow/widower up to her/his death or remarriage whichever is earlier.

¶52

(b) Falling (a) above to the eldest surviving children in order of their birth up to the age of 25 years or he/she is gainfully employed whichever is earlier.

¶53

(c) In case the beneficiary is an unmarried daughter, until she attains 25 years of age or s married or is gainfully employed whichever occurs first.

¶54

(d) This process will continue till the last beneficiary attains the age of 25 years or is gainfully employed or married in case of daughter, whichever is earlier.

¶55

(e) Fresh sanction should be obtained in respect of every beneficiary as and when there is change of beneficiary as above, where simultaneous sanction of family pension was

¶56

MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.04.26

¶57

Page 5 of 7

¶58

LPA No. 164/2025

¶59

not obtained along with sanction of pension as per new instructions.

¶60

(f) In case of twin children, family pension will be payable to both in the proportion of 50:50.

¶61

(g) Family pension will be payable even if the widow/widower is working in the Bank on compassionate grounds.

¶62

(h) If the pensioner leaves two legally wedded wives, the family pension is payable to both the wives in equal proportions.

¶63

(i) The family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life if he/she is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years. Provided that only that disability, which manifests itself in the child before retirement or death of the employee while in service, shall be taken into account.

¶64

11. When we examine the case of the respondent as per above regulations, we find that she fulfills all the eligibility requirements for Family Pension. 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 existing since 1975.

¶65

12. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said by the Bank that the disability which has crippled the respondent manifested

¶66

only after the retirement of the deceased employee. It is pertinent

¶67

MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.04.26

¶68

Page 6 of 7

¶69

LPA No. 164/2025

¶70

to mention to here that the deceased employee retired on superannuation on 31.03.1994, whereas the disability in the respondent was in existence and had manifested in the year 1975.

¶71

It seems that the appellant-Bank took a hyper-technical approach and denied Family Pension to the respondent, primarily, for the reasons that her late father had inadvertently omitted to mention

¶72

her name in the declaration form submitted at the time of seeking of post retiral benefits. We could have understood if there was a dispute with regard to the relationship of the respondent with late Shri. Joginder Singh the deceased employee.

¶73

13. From the record, we find that the respondent is receiving Family Pension from Army having been accepted as a daughter of

¶74

the deceased.

¶75

14. Viewed from any angle, we find no good reason or justification to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the writ Court.

¶76

15. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal

¶77

and the same is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶78

(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE

¶79

SRINAGAR:

¶80

21.04.2026 “Mir Arif”

¶81

(a) Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No. (b) Whether order is speaking? Yes/No.

¶82

MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.04.26

¶83

Page 7 of 7

¶84

LPA No. 164/2025

State Bank of India and Anr. v. Balbir Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India and Anr. v. Balbir Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahant Subhash Shah Vs the Deputy Commissioner Srinagar (Revenue)

Syed Ghulam Mohidin Shah Geelani Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Rural Development Department)

Union Territory through Police Station Rajbagh (Home Department) (Nia) Vs Showkat Ahmad Khan and Ors.

Naseer Ahmad Reshi and Ors. Vs Director Ex Officio Secretary to Government and Ors. (Sher I Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences)

Zakir Majeed Shah Vs Authorised Officer and Ors. (Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd.(Banks)

Union Territory through Police Station Chadoora (Home) (Nia) Vs Mohammad Altaf Bhat and Ors.