[2026:RJ-JP:15180] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11605/2023 Smt Bhanwar Kanwar W/o Late Shri Abhay Singh, Aged About 93 Years, R/o Village And Post Indrapura, Via Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Bank Of India, (Head Office), 18-19, Devdaskamlleg Block, Synergy Building, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex- Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051 Through Its Chairman. 2. The General Manager, State Bank Of India, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur- 302005. 3. The Central Public Information Officer Cum Assistant General Manager, SBI, Local Head Office Tilak Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur. 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Udaipurwati Branch, Dist- Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Beniwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal Mr. Laxmi Kant Ms. Kalpana Mr. Varun HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 10/04/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard on final disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not granting ex-gratia benefits to the petitioner under the scheme. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant such benefits. 3. Initially, the petitioner filed a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15269/2022) challenging the action of the respondents in not granting ex-gratia benefit as per the circular [2026:RJ-JP:15180] (2 of 3) [CW-11605/2023] dated 16.11.2006. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. However, the respondents, without considering the representation of the petitioner, passed the order dated 26.06.2023 rejecting the claim for ex-gratia benefit on the ground that the petitioner did not meet the criteria prescribed under the policy. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, without challenging the said order dated 26.06.2023, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant ex-gratia benefits as admissible under the circular dated 16.11.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner’s husband did not complete 20 years of service as required, considering the fact that the petitioner, who being a widow, is not getting any pension for the service rendered by her husband, a direction may be issued to extend such benefits. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that unless the eligibility criteria is fulfilled, the petitioner cannot be granted ex-gratia benefit under the scheme. 6. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents, the policy framed under the circular dated 16.11.2006 clearly provides that the widow of an employee is entitled for ex-gratia benefit as admissible under the said policy provided that such employee must have rendered 20 years of continuous service prior to superannuation and must have retired on or before 31.12.1985. In the present case, although the petitioner’s husband retired prior to 31.12.1985, he did not fulfill the requirement of 20 years of continuous service. He joined service on 01.11.1963 and retired on 31.07.1981, thereby falling short by approximately two years [2026:RJ-JP:15180] (3 of 3) [CW-11605/2023] for completion of 20 years of continuous service. Therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected the petitioner's claim for grant of ex-gratia benefits under the scheme. This Court cannot issue directions contrary to the policy as the petitioner is not eligible for such benefits under the circular dated 16.11.2006 and, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 38 - BhumikaP/-