ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR

17.

OA No 165/2016 with MA No 286/2016 Smt Janki Devi Wd/o No-314 Nk Piru Ram, S/o Shri Joga Ram,R/o VPO-Kanwarpura, Tehsil-Chirawa, Distt-Jhunjhunu (Raj) .… Applicant Versus

1. The Union of India, through its Secretary to the Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi - 110011

2. The Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension)

Allahabad (UP)

3. The OIC Records, The Rajputana Rifles, Delhi Cantt …. Respondents For Applicant : Mr Yogendra Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr Anil Bhardwaj, Advocate CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

O R D E R

28.01.2025

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for grant of arrears of Service Pension for lifetime of her Husband from 16.02.1945 to 04.07.1994 and thereafter Family Pension for life along with interest on arrears @ 12% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Applicant’s Husband was enrolled in the Jaipur Infantry on 13.02.1933 and after rendering 12 years and 3 days of Service, he was Discharged from Service on 15.02.1945 at his own request on extreme compassionate grounds. After retirement, her Husband died on 04.07.1994. The Applicant submits that her husband must have served Ex-India Service and as per existing policy, Ex-India Service is counted as double service. After counting of War Service as double, the total service of her husband must have crossed 15 years, thereby entitling him for grant of Service Pension. Moreover, in terms of GoI, MoD letter dt 21.06.1954, officers and PBOR discharged in large numbers due to Government Policy may be granted Service Pension. Moreover, in terms of Para 164 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1), the Applicant’s husband was entitled for Special Pension. Since pension is a recurring cause of action, on knowing the policy on the subject, the Applicant issued Legal Notice to the Respondents for grant of arrears of Service Pension during lifetime of her husband and thereafter Family Pension to the Applicant, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply. While not disputing the basic facts submitted by the Applicant, the Respondents have raised a preliminary objection on the ground that the OA has been filed after a long delay of more than 71 years without any justifications and, hence, the OA is required to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Respondents have further submitted that Service documents of the Applicant’s Husband have been destroyed by burning after expiry of their mandatory retention period. However, as per the Long Roll, the Applicant’s husband rendered 12 years and 2 days of service, including War/ Field Service from 22.11.1943 to 21.09.1944. The name of the Applicant is not found recorded in the Long Roll as NOK. Besides, her husband did not approach any authority for grant of Service Pension during his lifetime. The Applicant’s husband was discharged at his own request and had not completed minimum qualifying service of 15 years for grant of Service Pension, therefore, he was not entitled for grant of Service Pension and consequently, the Applicant is also not eligible for grant of Family Pension. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have submitted that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed with costs.

4. The matter was heard in detail. During the course of arguments on 10.01.2025, Learned Counsel for the Applicant mentioned that the Applicant has reportedly died, however, he did not produce any evidence to substantiate his statement. Today, when the case was listed for hearing, Learned Counsel for the Applicant prayed that the case be decided on merits. Learned Counsel for the Respondents also raised no objection in deciding the case on merit as prayed for by the Learned Counsel for the Applicant and also mentioned that they