1. The short question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the `mother who falls in the category of Class (I) legal heir under the Jammu & Kashmir Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), can be denied the family pension.

2. The brief facts for the disposal of this petition are that son of the petitioner late Virender Kumar Tikoo, who was working as Senior Manager in the respondent Bank and remained un-married during his life time, died on 28th of Dec02. Petitioner being the sole legal heir was dependent upon him. The further fact is that the respondent Bank in exercise of power under Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act (23 of 1955), framed Regulations for establishment and maintenance of Pension Fund under the State Bank of India Pension Fund Rules, which prescribed for the payment of family pension in case of death of an employee of the Bank to his/her legal heirs.

3. After the death of son of the petitioner, who had become a qualified member for the purpose of pension on the date of his death, the petitioner being the sole dependent upon her son, applied for grant of the benefit of family pension to respondent No.3 vide representation dt. 18th of Nov03. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that under the rules, only a widow/widower or the surviving children of the deceased employee is entitled to this benefit. Petitioner represented before the Chairman of the Bank also but vide impugned order dt. 11th of Feb04, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. It is this order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

4. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that in terms of the Pension Scheme adopted by the respondent Bank, the son of the petitioner had become a qualified member for the purpose of pension and after his death the petitioner who is the sole legal heir and dependent upon her son cannot be denied the family pension. It is stated that for the purposes of succession, the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Act and so far as maintenance is concerned, she is governed by the provisions of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1960 and in terms of Section 20 and 21 of the said Act, she being the dependant could claim maintenance from her son during his life time and after his death, she is entitled to family pension from the amount which has become due to his deceased son being a qualified member of the respondent Bank for the purpose of pension. It is thus stated that claim of the petitioner should not have been rejected by the respondent Bank.

5. Respondents in their counter have pleaded that the Bank has introduced the Scheme of family pension w.e.f. 1st of Jan87 by way of framing Rule 23(5) in the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules. It is stated that in terms of the said Rules, the mother of a deceased employee is not entitled to claim the benefit of family pension. It is further stated that the deceased Virender Kumar Tikoo had not even nominated the petitioner for grant of terminal benefits like Provident Fund and gratuity. It is thus stated that the petitioner is not entitled to family pension.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Under Section 6 of the Act, the property of a male Hindu who has died intestate is to devolve according to the provisions of Chapter II firstly upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule attached to the Act, and in case, there is no heir of Class I, then upon the heirs being the relatives as specified .in Class II of the Schedule. Class I of the Schedule is relevant and is being reproduced below:-

"Class I"

"Son;daughter;widow;mother;son of pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a predeceased son of a pre-deceased son; widow of a pre-de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document