1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1954/2002. : : Smt. Rajesh Bhatnagar Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. : : Date of Order 22.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the petitioner. Mr.G.K.Garg with Ms.Anita Agarwal for the respondent (s). Heard learned counsel for the respondent and perused the averments contained in the writ petition. This writ petition has been filed by the widow of employee of the respondent-bank who retired from their service on 28.2.1999. He unfortunately however expired on 16.6.1999. The respondents thereafter promulgated the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995 which came into force w.e.f. 29.9.1995. In the said Regulations, the retired employees or in the case of a retired employees who expired, their widows are required to exercise option within 120 days for receiving pension/family pension, but in that event, they were also required to refund the amount of contributory provident fund as per Regulation 3 (7) along with accrued interest within 60 days thereafter. 2 The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that in spite of her requesting the respondents number of times, they did not make payment of pension and family pension and other retiral dues. The petitioner has in all her representations and also in paras No.10 & 12 of the writ petition stated that she being widow had no source of income, therefore, she was not in position to deposit the amount of Rs.59,346.01 upto 20.5.1997. Thereafter when time limit of such deposit was extended by six months, then also she could not arrange for such money. Perusal of the writ petition and the enclosed documents indicates that petitioner submitted representations to the respondents on number of occasions but was unable to deposit the said amount. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the family pension as per the Regulations aforesaid, but it is contended that in the absence of deposit of amount of provident fund received by her late husband together with interest @ 6% per annum as per the aforesaid Regulations, the petitioner could not be paid the benefit of pension/family pension. Having perused the arguments in the writ petition and considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for 3 the respondents, I find that the petitioner is entitled to receive the family pension and such other retiral dues as may have been payable to her husband, had he been alive. She cannot be denied these benefits just because she was unable to deposit the amount of provident fund. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to calculate the arrears of pension/family pension, as found payable in terms of Regulations of 1995 and first adjust the amount of contributory fund which the petitioner was required to refund. Since the petitioner has retained the amount of contributory fund for all this time, she would not be entitled to any interest on arrears of family pension and other dues for the aforesaid period. At the same time, the respondents would also not charge any interest on the aforesaid amount from the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date copy of the judgment is received before the respondents. A copy of this judgment be endorsed to the petitioner for information. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/-Item No.23.