SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ
Kanchan Dua – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.7459-7460 of 2010
Decided on : 23-09-2019
Army service - Liberalised pension - Appellant’s husband deployed in Operation Rakshak, but dying of sudden cardiac arrest in his room - Liberlaised pension permissible to only personnel killed or disabled on account of injuries in action - Held, appellant was rightly denied liberalized pension. (Para 8, 17)
Facts of the case:
The husband of the Appellant was commissioned in the Army in October, 1968. In 1990, he was promoted as a Colonel. When he was posted as the Commandant of 890 Animal Transport Battalion in Nowshera, Jammu and Kashmir, he was moved to Rajouri for Operational requirement in Operation Ran Vijay at the location of HQ 25 Infantry Division. In the morning of 25.01.1992, he was found dead in his room. The cause of death was found to be sudden cardiac failure due to high stress and strain. The Appellant was initially granted ordinary family pension and, later special family pension. She made a representation for grant of Liberalised Family Pension. After two rounds of litigation upto High Court the Armed Forces Tribunal, being of the opinion that cardiac failure does not fall under Category ‘E’ of Part II of the Instructions issued by the Government of India on 31.01.2001, dismissed the application of the Appellant for liberalized pension.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant was rightly denied liberalized pension.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. Sanction was accorded by the President of India for the modifications to the Rules/Regulations concerning pensionary benefits to the Armed Forces personnel on 31.01.2001. Pensionary benefits upon the death or disability in attributable/aggravated cases is dealt with in Part II thereof. Category ‘E’ of Part II is as follows:
Category ‘E’
Death or disability arising as a result of: -
(a) Enemy action in international war.
(b) Action during deployment with a peace keeping mission abroad.
(c) Border skirmishes.
(d) During laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also minesweeping Operations.
(e) On account of accidental explosions of mines while laying Operationally oriented mine-field or lifting or negotiating mine-field laid by the enemy or own forces in Operational areas near international borders or the line of control.
(f) War like situations, including cases which are attributable to/aggravated by: -
i. Extremist acts, exploding mines etc. while on way to an Operational area.
ii. Battle inoculation training exercises or demonstration with live ammunition.
iii. Kidnapping by extremists while on Operational duty.
(g) An act of violence/attack by extremists, anti-social elements etc. while on Operational duty.
(h) Action against extremists, anti-social elements, etc. death/disability while employed in the aid of civil power in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrators will be covered under this category.
(i) Operations specially notified by the Government from time to time.
2. The eligible members of the family of Armed Forces personnel mentioned in Category ‘E’ shall be entitled to Liberalised Family Pension in case of his death. The scope of the above provision falls for our consideration in these appeals.
3. The husband of the Appellant was commissioned in the Army in October, 1968. In 1990, he was promoted as a Colonel. When he was posted as the Commandant of 890 Animal Transport Battalion in Nowshera, Jammu and Kashmir, he was moved to Rajouri for Operational requirement in Operation Ran Vijay at the location of HQ 25 Infantry Division. In the morning of 25.01.1992, he was found dead in his room. The cause of death was found to be sudden cardiac failure due to high stress and strain. The Appellant was initially granted ordinary family pension and, later special family pension. She made a representation for grant of Liberalised Family Pension. The Appellant complained that the entry in the service record of her husband was wrongfully altered from “Physical casualty under Operation Rakshak” to “Physical casualty”. As there was no response, she filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking alteration of the entry in the service record of her husband from “Physical casualty” to “Physical casualty under Operation Rakshak”. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the alteration of the service record of the Appellant’s husband to “physical casualty under Operation Rakshak”. Reliance was placed by the High Court on the findings recorded in the Court of Inquiry that the death of the Appellant’s husband was attributable to bona fide military service in the field covered under Operation Rakshak. The High Court further directed the Respondents to consider grant of Liberalised Family Pension to the Appellant.
4. After altering the entry in the service record of the Appellant’s husband from “physical casualty” to “physical casualty under Operation Rakshak”, the Respondents found that the Appellant was not entitled for Liberalised Family Pension. Aggrieved by the rejection of the request for payment of Liberalised Family Pension, the Appellant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing a Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh. Being of the opinion that cardiac failure does not fall under Category ‘E’ of Part II of the Instructions issued by the Government of Ind
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.