30.07.2026 6 sdas WPA 15701 of 2026 Smt. Anjali Jana Vs. Punjab National Bank& Ors. Mr. Ekramul Bari Sk. Imtiaj Uddin .….. for the petitioner Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury Ms. Payel Ghosh ……. for the Bank 1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record. 2. The petitioner is the wife of a former employee of the erstwhile United Bank of India, which has presently merged with the respondent no. 1, Punjab National Bank. The petitioner’s husband expired sometime in March, 2014. The petitioner has been running from the pillar to post in pursuit of her entitlement to the family pension. 3. The petitioner has not been granted such family pension on account whereof the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Ms. Roy Choudhury, at the very inception, has raised the point of maintainability of the writ petition in view of the fact that the petitioner’s husband was an award staff and is, thus, guided by the bipartite agreement between the employer and the employee. 2 This issue may not be germane in the instant case. Principally, since the petitioner herein is not the employee of the Bank, she is claiming as a legal heir of the erstwhile employee of the Bank and therefore, she is not strictly guided by the bipartite agreement. Hence, the instant writ petition is maintainable by the petitioner. 5. Mr. Bari, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is entitled to the arrear pension as well as the monthly pension under Punjab National Bank Employees Pension Guidelines governed by the PNB Pension Regulation, 1995. 6. In terms of such Rules, family has been defined in relation to an employee to mean the wife in case of a male employee or husband in case of a female employee. The right of the wholly dependent parents will arise only if the employee does not have a widow/widower nor any children. The petitioner is, therefore, considered as the only person in the family of the deceased employee. 7. In so far as the monthly pension of the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute, according to Mr. Bari, as she is entitled to the same. 8. In so far as the petitioner’s right to the arrear pension is concerned, the petitioner had filed a Succession Case No. 22 of 2017 which has been 3 disposed of by an order dated September 14, 2018, directing inter alia : “Let a Succession Certificate be issued in favour of the petitioners, relating to their claim of 3/4th share in the schedule mentioned arrear pension amount of Rs.65,0063.22/- of the deceased, Binay Kumar Jana, on payment of appropriate stamp duty.” 9. It is this order which has now created a problem. 10. Ms. Roy Choudhury, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Bank, submits that bereft of all other issues, the petitioner’s form, which has been annexed to the writ petition at page no. 24, is incomplete and insufficient, since it has not been duly attested by the Brach officials nor has a recent photograph of the applicant been annexed. 11. It is clear that the petitioner, as a widow of the deceased employee, is entitled to the family pension payable on account of the deceased employee. In fact, the petitioner would have been entitled to the entirety of the arrear pension, had it not been for the order dated September 14, 2018. However, the order stipulates that the petitioner would be entitled to at least 1/4th of the arrear pension, being the petitioner in Succession Case No. 22 of 2017. 12. In view of the aforestated, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to file a fresh application, complete in all respects with the respondent Bank by August 10, 2026. The Bank authorities will consider 4 the application and immediately disburse the monthly pension payable on account of the deceased employee to the petitioner. The Bank will also consider and disburse at least 1/4th of the arrear pension due and payable on account of the deceased employee in favour of the petitioner. The entire exercise by the Bank will be completed by August 31, 2026. 13. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 14. There will be no order as to costs. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)