Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

WP(C) No.2901/2023 7|P a g e

13. The petitioner has placed on record disability certificate issued on 24.03.2011 issued by the Medical Board, according to which she is suffering from 100% disability in relation to her all four limbs. The certificate further reflects that the petitioner is suffering disability due to congenital disease, meaning thereby that disability of petitioner is the result of a disease which the petitioner was suffering right from her birth. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is unemployed and is not capable of earning. It is also not in dispute that she has crossed the age of 25 years long back.

WP(C) No.2901/2023 8|P a g e

15. The argument raised by learned counsel for the Respondent Bank appears to be attractive at first blush but on a careful analysis of clause (i) of the Pension Instructions quoted above, the argument appears to be without any substance. Proviso to the said clause lays down that the disability should have manifested itself in the child before the retirement or death of the employee. In the case of the petitioner, admittedly, she was suffering from a congenital disease right from her birth which had taken place in the year 1966. In the disability certificate it has been clearly indicated that the cause of her disability was congenital disease. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that even prior to the year 2009, when she had to undergo surgery for below knee amputation, she had suffered auto amputation of both of her hands due to the congenital disease with which she was suffering. The fact that the petitioner was suffering from incurable congenital disease which led to her disability clearly goes on to show that the disability had manifested itself in the petitioner right from the day of her birth. Thus she had incurred disability even when her father was very much in service.

17. Keeping the aforesaid objective in view, the expression "manifests" appearing in clause (i) of the Pension Instructions has to be interpreted liberally so as to advance the aim and object of scheme providing for family pension to a disabled person. Thus by giving wider meaning to the expression "manifests", cases of even those disabled persons who incur disability on account of a congenital disease, even if the effects of such a disease become pronounced after the passage of some time, would be covered under the family pension scheme of the respondent Bank. Merely because the effects of the congenital disease were less pronounced during the initial years of a disabled person, would not disentitle such person to get the family pension if he/she is otherwise entitled to it. The narrow interpretation of proviso to clause (i) of the instructions given by the Respondent Bank has defeated the WP(C) No.2901/2023 10 | P a g e

18. When case of the petitioner is considered in light of the interpretation given by this Court to expression "manifests", appearing in proviso to clause (i) of the Pension Instructions, it leaves no manner of doubt in holding that the petitioner, who is suffering from a congenital disease right from her birth that has led to her 100% disability, is eligible to Family Pension. The impugned communication dated 23.04.2020 issued by the Respondent Bank, whereby claim of the petitioner stands rejected, is, therefore, not sustainable in law and is liable to be