In a significant and compassionate judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that family pension rules must be interpreted liberally, especially in cases involving disabled dependents. The court was adjudicating a matter concerning the denial of family pension benefits to a woman who is 100% disabled and the daughter of a deceased State Bank of India (SBI) employee. The petitioner had approached the court after the bank refused to grant her family pension on the grounds that she did not meet the eligibility criteria as per the prevailing pension norms.
The bench, presided over by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, firmly held that pensionary benefits are intended as a measure of social welfare and must be construed in a manner that fulfills their underlying purpose—providing financial support to dependents of deceased employees. In this context, the court observed that the rigid and technical interpretation adopted by SBI was contrary to both the letter and spirit of the relevant pension regulations. The petitioner, being a person with a certified 100% disability, fell squarely within the scope of a dependent family member, as per the broader and humane reading of the rules.
Justice Nargal emphasized that pension is not a bounty or charity, but rather a rightful entitlement derived from the services rendered by the deceased employee during their lifetime. Denying such benefits to a disabled dependent not only violates principles of equity and justice but also undermines the purpose of welfare legislation. The court reiterated that in cases involving socially or physically vulnerable individuals, such as those with disabilities, the interpretative approach should lean in favor of inclusion rather than exclusion. A restrictive reading of the provisions, especially in such contexts, would lead to unjust and absurd outcomes, which the judiciary must always strive to prevent.
The court noted that the petitioner had been dependent on her father for her entire life and continued to remain so even after his demise due to her severe disability. The medical evidence presented clearly established her incapacity to earn a livelihood, satisfying the key condition for eligibility under family pension rules. Despite this, the SBI rejected her claim without offering any justifiable reason grounded in law or policy. This, the court found, to be not only arbitrary but also violative of her constitutional right to live with dignity.
Accordingly, the court directed SBI to process and release the family pension benefits to the petitioner with immediate effect. The judgment sets an important precedent for how public institutions should handle similar cases in the future. It reinforces the judicial mandate that welfare provisions must be implemented with sensitivity, particularly where persons with disabilities are involved. The court’s decision also reaffirms that bureaucratic technicalities should not become tools of exclusion when the objective of the legislation is clearly to provide relief and support.
This ruling stands as a strong affirmation of the rights of disabled dependents and the necessity for a compassionate interpretation of social welfare laws. It serves as a guiding light for future cases where vulnerable individuals seek protection under pension frameworks designed to safeguard their financial and social security.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.