Hindu Law – Mother falls in the category of class I legal heir – cannot be denied the family pension: Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Succession Act, 1956

The son of the petitioner, late Shri Virender Kumar Tikoo,
who was working as a senior manager in the respondent bank and remained
unmarried during his life time, expired. The petitioner, being the sole legal
heir, was dependent on him. After the death of the son, the petitioner, who had
become a qualified member for the pension on the date of his death, she being
the sole dependent of her son, applied for grant of benefit of family pension.
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 are
entitled to this benefit.

The respondent bank had introduced the scheme of family
pension w.e.f. 1st January, 1987 by way of framing Rule 23(5) of the State Bank
of India Employees Pension Fund Rules. It is stated in the said rule that the
mother of a deceased employee is not entitled to claim the benefit of family
pension. It was 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 was thus stated that the petitioner was not entitled to family
pension.

The respondent bank also contended that the property of a
Hindu who has died intestate can devolve as per the provisions of the Act, but
pension was not covered by the term “property”, and as such, in this case, the
mother, who has been shown to be one of the legal heirs as per the Act, but not
included as such in the rules, cannot seek the benefit of family pension.

As per the list of heirs, being a relative specified in Class
I of the Schedule, the `mother’ has been kept on the same footing as that of
son, daughter, widow and other relatives.

The respondent bank, in its rules for family pension, has
excluded the mother from getting this benefit. The policy adopted in this
regard, i.e., excluding the mother from the list of legal heirs so far as grant
of pension is concerned, had been challenged by the petitioner as being a
violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

It was held that there was no rationale in excluding the
mother from the said list and denying her the benefit of family pension when she
is a class I legal heir under the Act. Thus, the rule framed by the respondent
bank in this regard was discriminatory and in violation of Art. 14 of the
Constitution and the provisions of the Act and the schedule attached thereto.

The nomination of the niece by the deceased employee would
not affect the right of the petitioner so far as getting the family pension was
concerned, because a nominee was only authorized to receive the amount for which
he/she has been nominated.