A widow of a Bank of Maharashtra employee received her husband's provident fund and gratuity after his death. Years later, she sought family pension under a one-time pension scheme introduced by the bank, but the Delhi High Court rejected her claim, holding that she had failed to exercise the option within the prescribed deadline and could not establish proof of timely submission.
The case concerned Savitri Devi, widow of late Ramesh Chand, who had joined Bank of Maharashtra on March 1, 1985 and died while in service on February 12, 2006. At the time, he was covered by the contributory provident fund regime. The bank settled the provident fund and gratuity benefits payable on his death on July 24, 2006.
The dispute arose after the bank introduced a one-time opportunity under a Settlement/Joint Note dated April 27, 2010, followed by a circular dated August 18, 2010.
The case number is W.P.(C) 10777/2025, and the order was passed by the Delhi High Court on 7 July 2026 in Savitri Devi v. Bank of Maharashtra & Anr.
The August 18 circular covered families of employees who had joined the bank before September 29, 1995 and died in service after that date. Chand's widow therefore fell within the eligible category.
However, the Delhi High Court noted that eligibility was not enough. The scheme required eligible families to submit the prescribed Annexure III option form by October 18, 2010. The branch was also required to acknowledge receipt, retain a copy and forward the forms through the prescribed administrative channel. The circular specifically stated that families whose forms were not received within the stipulated period would not be eligible for pension or family pension.
Devi relied on an option form dated March 2, 2011, several months after the deadline. She also said she was willing to refund the bank's contribution to the provident fund, along with interest and other amounts required under the pension scheme.
But the court found another problem. There was no branch acknowledgment, receiving stamp or contemporaneous record establishing that the form had actually been submitted to the bank on March 2, 2011.
The court held that timely exercise of the option was not merely a procedural requirement. It was fundamental to establishing the right to pension under the scheme.
Devi also relied on internal correspondence between the bank's branch and head office in January 2014. The branch had forwarded a copy of her option form to the head office and sought guidance, while the head office asked for the requisite documents to be obtained and the papers resubmitted for consideration.
The High Court, however, said this correspondence did not amount to the bank accepting her pension option or condoning the delay. The branch had itself recorded that it could not trace evidence showing that the form had earlier been forwarded to the head office.
The court did acknowledge that the bank's handling of the matter showed administrative laxity and indecision. But it held that such shortcomings could not create a pension entitlement that was unavailable under the scheme.
The court also found that Devi's case suffered from gross delay and laches. Although the correspondence took place in 2014, she did not approach the High Court until 2025. Her later representation and RTI application in 2024 could not revive a claim based on a one-time option that had to be exercised in 2010.
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Devi had failed to establish an enforceable legal right to the pension or family pension scheme.
For families dealing with employee benefits, the case highlights a practical point that when a pension or benefit scheme provides a one-time option, keeping the eligibility letter is not enough. The prescribed form must be submitted within the deadline, and the applicant should retain a dated acknowledgment or other proof of submission.
