IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 29.01.2026 Union of India and others ....Petitioners Versus Smt. Anuradha Saini and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Saksham Parmar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Roopam Atwal, Advocate and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2 – Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, benefit of Liberalised Family Pension has been granted in favour of respondent No.1.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the grant of benefit of Liberalised Family Pension, in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not covered as, the officer died while he was sleeping in the bunker and therefore, the same cannot be treated as a death occurring in an operational area. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that under any circumstances, even if the death is treated to be attributable to the military service, only the benefit of Special Family Pension can be granted and not the benefit of Liberalised Family Pension and therefore, the grant of the said benefit is contrary to the instructions, which have been issued by the Government of India, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-8.

3. Keeping in view the advance copy given, the respondent No.1 is being represented Mr. Navdeep Singh, the Learned Senior Counsel, who argues that the area where the husband of respondent No.1 was posted at the time of his death was already declared as operational area under “Operation Rakshak”. The Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 further submits that it is not a simple case of death of a Soldier while in sleep rather, on the same day early morning, there was an infiltration by 25 Bangladeshi, who were apprehending while trying to cross over the border to Pakistan. The Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the said incident was taken care of by the late husband of respondent No.1 and keeping in view the fact that the late husband of respondent No.1 was already suffering from the disability of hypertension, due to happening of said incident, he suffered heart failure which resulted into his death and, therefore, the said death has to be treated to have happened in an operational area so as to grant the benefit of Liberalised Family Pension. The Learned Senior Counsel further submits that at the time of the death, the husband of respondent No.1 was living in a bunker situated on the international border with Pakistan, where he actually died and therefore, keeping in view the fact that the death occurred in an operational area, the grant of benefit of Liberalised Family Pension by the Tribunal is perfectly valid and legal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

5. It may be noticed that after the death of husband of respondent No.1, a Court of Inquiry was ordered so as to ascertain the cause of death of the husband of respondent No.1 and whether, the same is attributable to the military service or not. It is a conceded position between the parties that as per the opinion of the Court of Inquiry, the death of the husband of respondent No.1 is not only been treated to be attributable to the military service but also, the same was assessed to have occurred while performing the bonafide military duty that too during happening of operation Rakshak. Once, the said fact has been conceded, it cannot be said that the death of the husband of respondent No.1 did not happen while performing the duties in an operational area so as treat are same as no