##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

115 CWP-38241-2025 (O&M)

Decided on : 22.12.2025

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

. .Petitioners

Versus

BHATERI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED ) THROUGH HER LRS AND ANR

. . . Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

PRESENT: Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Senior Panel Counsel

for the petitioners.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order

dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces

Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’)

by which, it has been held that the death of the husband of respondent No.1,

who died due to heart attack on 24.08.1986 was aggravated by the military

service, on which ground respondent No. 1 has been held to be entitled for

grant of special Family Pension.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that though, the

husband of respondent No.1 was enrolled in the Army on 19.10.1965 and had

served upto the date of his death i.e. 24.08.1986 but as he died of heart attack

while he was availing annual leave, the death of husband of respondent No.1

could not have been treated as having been aggravated by the military service

so as to grant respondent No. 1 the benefit of special family pension. Learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that the benefit of “Special Family

Pension” which has been extended to respondent No.1 is incorrect and the

impugned order dated 10.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal

RIYA

2025.12.24 17:40

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2

CWP-38241-2025 (O&M)

may kindly be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits

that even otherwise, the death of husband of respondent No. 1 caused due to

heart attack he encountered, could not have been said to have been

aggravated by or attributed to the military service.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone

through the record of the case with her able assistance.

4. After a bare perusal of the paper book and the impugned order

alongwith the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners,

three issues surface before us which need to be dealt accordingly. Firstly,

that whether the heart attack which lesd to the death of husband of

respondent no. 1 can be said to have been aggravated by or attributed to

military service, second, that whether the death of husband of respondent No.

1 due to heart attack suffered by him, being on annual leave can be still

attributed to military service, third, that whether stress and strain caused

during military service can lead to such circumstance resulting in heart

attack. As such, first and third issues are interrelated, both of the issues will

be dealt accordingly and simultaneously.

It is relevant here to notice that “situation leading to heart

attack” takes time to develop and the stress and strain suffered during the

service period and the conditions to which an army personnel has been

subjected to during such time, play an important role in the development of

such situation which may lead to heart attack, which aspect/reasoning is

also backed by Rule 15 of Entitlement Rules. Furthermore, nothing has

come on record to show that while the husband of respondent No.1 was

performing the duties assigned to him for a period of 21 years, he was not

under such condition which could lead to happening of heart attack, which

RIYA

2025.12.24 17:40

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

3

CWP-38241-2025 (O&M)

reasoning is to be proved by the employer/Union as per the entitlement

Rules, which rules put the onus upon the employer to prove the same as the

presumption is always in favour of the army personnel. The stress and strain

encountered in 21 years of service and the job profile of the personnel

concerned has rendered the happening of heart attack due to the service,

which heart attack ultimately was the cause of his death.

5. A bare perusal of Annexures III to