Back
Grant for Casual Leave Death Upheld by
The has upheld the grant of to the widow of an Army personnel who died of cardiac arrest while on casual leave, ruling that service personnel on casual leave are and that such deaths remain .
A Division Bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal dismissed the 's writ petition challenging an order of the , which had awarded to Smt. Shakuntla Devi from — the day after her husband's death.
A Death Interrupted on the First Day of Leave
The deceased soldier, who had completed more than 17 years of military service, succumbed to cardiac arrest on . He had been granted casual leave from , and died on the very first day of that authorised leave period.
The argued that since the soldier was not on active duty at the time of death, the fatal event could neither be attributed to nor aggravated by military service. It further contended that the death had been assessed as not , making the Tribunal's decision and warranting interference.
Smt. Shakuntla Devi had approached the Armed Forces Tribunal through OA No. 512 of 2021, seeking in place of . The Tribunal ruled in her favour on , prompting the Union's challenge.
Two Questions Before the Court
The High Court framed two questions: whether the death could be attributed to the military service rendered by the soldier, and whether a death occurring during casual leave could still be treated as so as to justify .
On the first question, the Court observed that cardiac arrest frequently results from the stress and strain experienced during service. Referring to , the Bench noted that stress and strain is expressly classified as a cause of cardiac arrest among other diseases.
"Once the stress and strain caused during military service which may be due to various factors including but not limited to food, area of posting, arduous nature of job, is to be treated as cause of high blood pressure, which further is to be treated as cause of cardiac arrest, which was the cause of death of husband of respondent No.1, the said death is to be treated as ,"the Court observed.
The Bench also emphasised that the soldier was fit at the time of joining military service, further strengthening the causal connection between his service conditions and the fatal cardiac event.
Leave Days Do Not Sever the Duty Bond
Addressing the second question, the Bench held that what fundamentally matters is whether the soldier remained in service at the time of death — not whether he was physically performing active duties at that precise moment.
"It is immaterial that whether the death occurred was during the time he was serving on active duty or not, as the only aspect is to be seen that whether he was still in service at that time or not?"the Court stated.
The Bench noted that under the applicable service rules, an Army personnel on casual leave is treated as being on duty — a regulatory position that went unrebutted by the petitioners.
The Court drew heavily on the Full Bench judgment of the High Court in through Secretary v. Khushbash Singh (LPA No. 978 of 2009, decided on ), which held:
"An Army Personnel, while on casual leave or annual leave, shall be considered to be on duty except when by virtue of , he could not be , if he had not actually performed duty in that year."
The Full Bench had further clarified that where disability arises from natural causes, the inquiry centres on whether the intervention of army service caused the disability, with the Medical Board's scientific opinion carrying primacy. Crucially, any activity not inconsistent with military service — even during leave — would still be treated as .
Decision and Ramifications for Armed Forces Families
Finding no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition in its entirety, observing:
"The grant of the benefit of in favour of respondent No.1 in the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as coupled with the noted herein before, cannot be treated as either to the fact or so as to need any interference by this court."
The ruling clarifies that family pension entitlements for armed forces personnel are not defeated merely because death occurs during a period of authorised leave. As long as the personnel remains in service and the death can be linked — even indirectly — to the stress and strain of military life, the family's claim to stands protected.
This decision offers significant relief to families of armed forces personnel who succumb to conditions like cardiac arrest while on leave, reinforcing the position that the rigours of military service do not cease to matter simply because a soldier is on authorised rest. Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of. The judgment was pronounced on .
