http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1319 of 2008

PETITIONER: State Bank of Patiala

RESPONDENT: Manjeet

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1319 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 775/2006)  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.  2.      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’).  

       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. Few months after i.e. on  4.6.1986 he was killed while on duty.  On 11.9.1986 and  1.10.1986 Jai Singh’s widow Smt. Birmati-mother of the  respondent was paid gratuity and provident fund of late Jai  Singh. On 29.12.1986 the aforesaid Smt. Birmati was given  appointment in the appellant-Bank as Record Keeper-cum- Godown Keeper on compassionate grounds. On 23.3.1996 in  exercise of power conferred 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. The Regulations provide for  establishment and maintenance of pension funds for the  benefit of the employees of the State Bank of Patiala. The  regulations were published in the Official Gazette on  23.3.1996 and were operative w.e.f. 29.9.1995.

       On 12.8.2003 respondent attained majority. On  16.9.2003 she applied for family pension of late Jai Singh. 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  notified date i.e. on or before 20.7.1996.  Another  representation was made on 28.10.2003. 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 completed the required formalities within the prescribed  period.  

3.      A writ petition was filed for a direction to the appellant- Bank to give family pension to the respondent. The Division

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Bench, as noted above, allowed the writ petition holding that  family pension was illegally denied to her.      

4.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant-Bank submitted that Regulation 3 of the Regulations  deals with cases of employees who had already died. 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. At no point of time, not  even in the representation, respondent had indicated about  the alleged re-marriage of Birmati.  Only for the first time such  a stand had been taken in the writ petition. Further more, the  respondent admitted that she was living with Smt. Birmati.

5.      Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  supported the judgment of the High Court.          Regulation 3 reads as follows: "(1)    To exercise an option in writing within  one hundred and twenty days from the notified  date to become member of the Fund; and   (2)     To refund within sixty days after the  expiry of the said period of one hundred and  twenty days specified in Clause (B) the entire  amount of the Bank’s contribution to the  Provident Fund including interest accrued  thereon together with a further simple interest  at the rate of six per cent, per annum on the  said amount from the date of settlement of the  Provident Fund account till the date of refund  of the aforesaid amount to the Bank."           

6.      Regulation 40(3) is also relevant and reference has  already been made to that provision. In terms of Regulation 3  the option was required to be exercised within a period of 120  days from the notified date and there was a requirement of  refunding the contribution within 60 days after the aforesaid  120 days period.   

7.      Respondent’s mother opted for her own pension and not  for family pension.   Regulation 40(3) reads as follows:

"Where family pension is granted under this  regulation to a minor, it shall be payable to the  guardian on behalf of the minor"

8.      In Jai Singh B. Chauhan and Ors. v. Punjab National  Bank and Ors. (2005 (6) SCC 262), it was observed as follows:

"6. For the purpose of adjudicating the dispute few  provisions in the Regulations need to be noted.   

7.      "Notified Date" is defined in Regulation 2 as  follows:

       "notified date" means the date on  which these regulations are published in  the official Gazette;"

8.      In terms of Regulation 1, the Regulations were  deemed to have come into force on the date of their  publication in the Official Gazette.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

9.      Regulation 3, so far as relevant reads as  follows:

       "3. These regulations shall apply to  employees who,-

               xxx          xxx            xxx

       (3) (a) are in the service of the Bank  before the notified date and continue to  be in the service of the Bank on or after  the notified date; and

       (b) exercise an option in writing  within one hundred and twenty days  from the notified date to become member  of the Fund; and

       (c) authorize the trust of the  Provident Fund of the Bank to transfer  the entire contribution of the Bank  alongwith the interest accrued thereon to  the credit of the Fund constituted for the  purpose under regulation 5."   

        10.     As per Regulation 3 (3)(b) option was to be  exercised in writing within one hundred and twenty  days from the notified date to become member of  the fund. 11.     Regulation 3 (3)(c) is also of considerable  importance.  It required transfer of the entire  contribution of the Bank alongwith interest accrued  thereon to the credit of the fund constituted for the  purpose under Regulation 5, and authorized trust of  from the amount of the Provident Fund of the Bank  to effect the transfer.   

               Xx                              xx        

14.     In M/s. Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India  and others (1994 (5) SCC 198) a three-Judge Bench  of this Court held as follows:

"17. In the present case indisputably the  mode of publication prescribed by Section  25(1) was complied with.  The notification  was published in the official Gazette on  the 13.2.1986.  As to the effect of the  publication in the official Gazette, this  Court held (Srinivasan case 1987 (1) SCC  658,672: AIR 1987 SC 1059, 1067):                  "Where the parent statute is silent,  but the subordinate legislation itself  prescribes the manner of publication,  such a mode of publication may be  sufficient, if reasonable.  If the  subordinate legislation does not  prescribe the mode of publication or if  the subordinate legislation prescribes  a plainly unreasonable mode of  publication, it will take effect only  when it is published through the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

customarily recognized official  channel, namely, the Official Gazette  or some other reasonable mode of  publication.

18. We, therefore, see no substance in  the contention that notwithstanding the  publication in the Official Gazette there  was yet a failure to make the law known  and that, therefore, the notification did  not acquire the elements of operativeness  and enforceability.  This contention of  Shri Ganesh is unacceptable."  

9.      The High Court was not justified in saying that there was  no intimation to the respondent about the exercise of option.  Factually also it is not correct. Respondent’s mother was  serving in the bank and in fact had exercised the option for  her own pension and not for family pension.  

10.     Above being the position, the High Court was not justified  in directing grant of family pension to the respondent. In view  of above, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set  aside. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.