IMPORTANT POINT
Death Benefits – Widow of a serviceman cannot be harassed for getting due service benefits payable to her.

JUDGMENT

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Leave granted.

FACTUAL ASPECT

2. The respondent is the widow of late Naik Inderjeet Singh (for short, ‘the deceased’). The deceased was employed in the Indian Army on 27th February 1996. He was part of an Area Domination Patrol. The Area Domination Patrol was launched from Manjit Main to Rangwar Post for domination of the Rangwar gap in the proximity of the Line of Control (for short, ‘LC’) along the Anti Infiltration Obstacle System (for short, ‘AIOS’). A fence built by the Indian Army to prevent cross-border infiltration is known as AIOS. He complained of breathlessness during duty in extreme climatic conditions from 1.00 a.m. to 3.30 a.m. on 23rd January 2013. He was taken to the nearby Rangwar Post. The regimental medical officer found the condition of the deceased very critical. He could not be air-evacuated due to bad weather. Therefore, he was evacuated on foot. When he was taken to Chowkibal's MI room, he was declared dead. The cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest. His death was initially classified as a ‘battle casualty’ but was later classified as a ‘physical casualty’ attributable to military service. The respondent was granted all terminal benefits, including a special family pension. As she was denied a Liberalised Family Pension (LFP), she filed an original application before the Armed Forces Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The respondent sought quashing of the order dated 10th February 2016, by which the benefit of LFP was denied to her. She prayed for a direction to grant her LFP with interest. The appellants opposed the original application. Ultimately, by the impugned judgment dated 23rd August 2019, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed that the respondent be granted LFP and ex- gratia lumpsum amount payable in case of battle casualties dying in harness. The present appeal takes exception to the said judgment and order.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Shri Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, pointed out that LFP is governed by the order dated 31st January 2001 issued by the Director (Pensions) of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. He submitted that LFP is granted in case of death of an armed forces personnel under the circumstances mentioned in categories D and E of paragraph 4.1 of the order dated 31st January 2001. He submitted that, admittedly, category D does not apply to the deceased. He submitted that the case of the deceased is not covered by any of the clauses in category E. He submitted that as the deceased died due to cardiopulmonary arrest, his case was classified as a ‘physical casualty’ attributable to military service, and, therefore, the respondent was paid a special family pension. He relied on this Court's decisions in the case of Kanchan Dua v. Union of India and Anr., (2020) 18 SCC 709 and Radhika Devi v. Union of India and Ors., (2020) 18 SCC 715. He submitted that the present case is covered by both decisions. He submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is entirely erroneous.

4. Shri K Parameshwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, supported the impugned judgment by relying upon documents annexed to the counter affidavit.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

5. We must deal with the factual aspects. In paragraph 4.3 of the original application filed by the respondent, the following are the averments made:

“4.3 That while the husband of the applicant was posted in J&K and was part of Area Domination Patrol which was launched from Manjit Main to Rangwar Post for domination of Rangwar Gap in the proximity of LC and along the AIOS in extreme climatic condition on 23/01/2013 from 0100 Hrs to 0330 Hrs. The husband of the applicant complained of breathlessness and was taken to Rangwar Post where he was given First Aid. The condition of the husband of the applicant deteriorated and was required for immediate evacuation, but due to the inclement weather, air evacuation could not be done and husband of the applicant was tak