Ramuli Devi vs State Bank Of India & Ors.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Misc. Application (IA No.1 of 2024) is allowed. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 is taken on record.

Misc. Application (IA No.2 of 2026) is allowed. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3 is taken on record.

Petitioner claiming herself to be the wife of Jawahar Singh Rawat has filed the present writ petition challenging order dated 20.09.2023, passed by respondent no.2, annexure no.4 to the writ petition, whereby petitioner was informed that her name is not matching with the bank account of her husband-Late Jawahar Singh Rawat PF.3434443; as well as mandamus directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to give the family pension.

The case of the petitioner is that late husband of the petitioner was a retired Ex-Army Personnel. After his retirement from Army, he joined with the respondent-State Bank of India as a Security Guard in the year 1992. Husband of the petitioner died on 05.04.2023. It is admitted case of the petitioner as well as State Bank of India (hereinafter aftere referred to as “Bank”) that petitioner is entitled to get family pension.

Petitioner’s husband retired on 30.11.2015 and he was receiving regular pension from the Bank, but unfortunately he died on 05.04.2023, thereafter the petitioner staked claim for family pension.

The said request of the petitioner could not be accepted as the particulars given by the petitioner was not matching with record maintained with the Bank which resulted into filing of the writ petition.

The respondent-Bank filed its counter affidavit and submitted that husband of the petitioner was in service with the Bank as a Security Guard who retired on 30.11.2015 and was getting a pension at the rate of ₹5,484/- per month till his death.

It is also stated in the counter affidavit by the respondent- Bank that family pension cannot be issued to the petitioner as her particulars are not found matching with the particulars maintained with the record of the Bank.

The respondent no.3 has also filed her counter affidavit in which she stated that she is wife of Late Sudarshan Singh who was the Ex-Army personnel and she has nothing to do with the family pension claimed by petitioner being wife of Late Jawahar Singh Rawat.

In paragraph no.5 of the counter affidavit, it has been categorically stated that she is not the legally wedded wife of Jowahar Singh Rawat as she is wife of Late Sudarshan Singh who served in the Army and expired in 1983. She is receiving family pension in respect of her deceased husband from the Army. It is categorically stated that respondent no.3 was merely acquainted with Jawahar Singh Rawat and has no matrimonial relationship with him and she is not getting any family pension for Jowahar Singh

From perusal of the record, it is found that name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the bank records and in the army record name of the petitioner is mentioned as Ramoli Devi wife of Johar Singh Rawat and not as Jawahar Singh Rawat.

It is contended by learned counsel for respondent-Bank that since there was material contradiction in the name of husband of the petitioner as in the Army document it is written as Johar Singh Rawat while in the bank records it is written as Jawahar Singh Rawat and further her name has not been mentioned by her husband-Jawahar Singh in the bank documents rather name of Smt. Leela Devi is mentioned as his wife in ‘Pension and Guarantee Fund’.

Family pension can only be given to the petitioner once she obtains a succession certificate from the court of competent jurisdiction and without that it is quite impossible for the Bank to release family pension to petitioner Ramoli Devi being wife of Jawahar Singh Rawat

In such view of the matter no case is made out for interference in the matter.

Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed. The petitioner may get succession certificate from the court of competent jurisdiction as required by the respondent-Bank.