# PRIYANKA JAIN vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR

Court: Delhi High Court
Date: 2025-07-17
Citation: W.P.(C)-11178/2023 2025:DHC:5840-DB
Petitioner: PRIYANKA JAIN
Respondent: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR

[Official PDF on Delhi High Court website](https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/CHS17072025CW111782023_125226.pdf)

## Judgment text (excerpt)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 11178/2023 & CM APPL. 43441/2023 PRIYANKA JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Dr. L.S Chaudhary with Dr. Ajay Chaudhary, Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, Ms. Vinita, Monika, Mr. Anirudh Sharma and Mr. Vishesh Kumar, Advs. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Mr. Niraj Kumar and Mr. Sourabh Mahala, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 17.07.2025 C.HARI SHANKAR, J. The lis 1. This writ petition assails the constitutional validity of Regulation 2(o)(c) of the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 19951, “so far as it restricts the benefit of family pension to a deceased employee’s daughter, on completing the age of 25 years”. The provision reads thus: “2. Definitions: 1 “the Pension Regulations”, hereinafter W.P.(C) 11178/2023 2. Regulation 2(o)(c) is only a definition clause. It merely defines expressions used in the Pension Regulations. While, classically, a definition clause has no independent substantive operational existence, and becomes meaningful only when it is employed to understand the expression as it occurs in one or the ot

https://niyam.ai/judgements/high-court/2025/july/priyanka-jain-vs-punjab-national-bank-and-anr