The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal filed by the State Bank of India. The Court upheld the order of a single judge to grant family pension to a physically disabled woman from Budgam.
A disabled woman had applied for family pension of his father but SBI denied it. Finally, woman filed case in Court.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar said there was no merit in the bank’s appeal. The earlier order had cancelled the bank’s 2020 decision that rejected Balbir Kaur’s claim. It had also directed the bank to process her pension within two months.
The case is about Balbir Kaur, daughter of late Joginder Singh. He was a retired Army personnel and later worked as a security guard in the bank. He retired in 1994 and died in 2010. After his death, Kaur applied for family pension. She said she is physically disabled and cannot earn a living. She submitted a medical certificate showing that her condition is from birth and has existed since 1975.
The bank rejected her claim. It said that her father did not mention her as a dependent in the declaration form at the time of retirement. It also said that she did not meet the eligibility rules, especially regarding when her disability started.
Kaur’s lawyer argued that not mentioning her name in the form was a mistake. He said this should not stop her from getting her rightful pension.
The Court agreed with this argument. It said the omission appeared to be genuine. It may have happened because the father expected his wife to receive the pension first. The Court also said there was no dispute that Kaur is his daughter.
On eligibility, the Court said that Kaur meets all conditions. Her disability is permanent and makes her unable to earn. Medical records show that her condition existed long before her father’s retirement.
The Court said the bank’s approach was too technical. It cannot deny a genuine claim on such grounds. The Court also noted that Kaur is already receiving family pension from the Army as a dependent.
The ruling makes it clear that small procedural mistakes cannot take away the rights of disabled dependents to receive pension benefits.
While dismissing the appeal, the Court said there was no reason to interfere with the earlier judgment.
