Mandeep Kaur vs Union of India

R.L. Anand, J.—Mrs. Mandeep Kaur widow of late Sepoy Gurmit Singh resident of village Batauli, District Paliala, has filed the present

petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India and respondents No. 2 to 4 and she has prayed for the

quashment of the order dated 14.5.1998, An-nexure P-17, vide which her claim for special family pension was rejected by the Government of

India, Ministry of Defence. The petitioner has further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents and direction

be given to them for the release of the special family pension with effect from 28.8.1990 onwards for life at the rates mentioned in Regulation

227(b) of the Pension Regulations for the Army Part-I, along with all the consequential arrears with interest.

The brief facts of the case are that Shri Gurmit Singh was the husband of the petitioner. He was born on 5.5.1959. He was enrolled in the Army

on 17.4.1978. The husband of the petitioner died on 27.8.1990. His date of birth was 18.5.65. The date of birth of the children are also

mentioned in the writ petition but for our purpose it is not relevant. Ordinary family pension was released to the petitioner on 26.6.1993 with effect

from 28.8.1990. Enhanced ordinary family pension was also granted but this claim of special family pension of the petitioner was rejected vide

order dated 17.3.1994. The petitioner filed an appeal. She also filed multiple representations. Ultimately, the appeal was also rejected.

In short, the case setup by the petitioner is that the death of her husband is attributable to the military service, therefore, she is entitled to special

family pension as per Regulation No. 213.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondent. Respondents denied the allegations of the writ petitioner and submitted that death of the

husband of the petitioner had taken place on account of consumption of Aluminum Phosphide which is a poison and the deceased in the given

circumstances must have committed suicide and his act was not attributable to the military service. Further it was stated that the finding of the Court

of Inquiry is not binding on CCDA which is final authority with regard to the grant of special family pension.

I have heard Shri B.S. Sehgat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri S.K. Shartna, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.

The sole point for determination in this petition is whether the death of Shri Gurmit Singh in attributable to the military service, if so, then in that

eventuality, whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of special family pension. If the death, of Shri Gurmit Singh is not attributable to the army

service then certainly the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of special family pension.

Rule2l3 lays down that a special family pension may be granted to the family of an individual if his death was due to or hastened by a wound,

injury or disease which was attributable to military service or the aggravation by military service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before

or arose during military service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Court of Inquiry was constituted and the said Court of Inquiry

gave the finding that the death of the husband of the petitioner is attributable to the military service and this finding cannot be disturbed by the

CCDA because there was no basis for him to say that he did not agree with the finding of the Court of Inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner

has relied upon various judgments and the first judgment which has been relied upon is 1998 (1) SLR 212, Harkawaljit Singh v. Union of India in

which it was observed by His Lordship that if there is a categorical finding with regard to the death of Jawan that the death is attributable to the

military service and if this finding has been recorded by a Court of Inquiry which has considered the entire evidence, then the petitioner cannot be

deprived of the grant of special family pension on the plea that death was not attributable to the army service. Such a plea taken up by the

Government of India was rejected. The ratio of the cited case is applicable to the facts in hand because admittedly the Court of Inquiry gave the

finding that the death of Shri Gurmit Singh was attributable to the military service. Yet my attention was invited to a judgment passed in C. W.P.

No. 1933 of 1995, Guj Raj v. Union of India where this Court also gave the similar finding vide order dated 19.8.1996 and it is stated at the bar

by the counsel for the petitioner that the Union of India challenged this judgment in LPA No. 5 of 1997 and the LPA Bench had dismissed that

LPA. One more judgment has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner reported as 1991(7) SLR 788, Kislian Singh Sidhu and Anr. v.

Union of India and Ors. Thus, the consistent view of the law is that much weightage should be given to the finding of the Court of Inquiry and there

is valid reason behind it because the Court of Inquiry gives a finding after collecting the requisite evidence. It applied its mind to the entire evidence

and circumstances of the case and one individual sitting in the office cannot lightly disturb the finding of the Court of Inquiry in which cogent and

convincing documents are produced.

Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the cause of death of Shri Gurmit Singh was consumption of

Aluminium Phosphide which is a poison. Poison was not administered by the military authorities to the Jawans in their food, it is a clear cut case of

suicide and if Shri Gurmit Singh has committed suicide by taking Aluminium Phosphide poison which is meant for insecticides etc. then the

Government is not liable to pay the benefit of special family pension. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the respondents drew my

attention to the order of CCDA and submitted that the CCDA is the final authority in this matter and he has applied its mind independently while

depriving the petitioner of the special family pension.

I have considered the submission raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and in my opinion the submission raised by the learned

counsel for the respondents is not tenable in view of the case law and also for the reasons given by me above.

The CCDA (Pension) was never a member of committee which constituted the Court of Inquiry. There was no valid data and basis for him to say

that the death was not attributable to the army service.

In these circumstances, I allow the writ petition by quashing the order dated Annexure P-17 and also all subsequent orders vide which the claim

for special family pension of the petitioner has been rejected and I give direction to the respondent-authorities to release the benefit of special

family pension to the petitioner with effect from 28.8.1990 onwards according to law and rules within three months from the receipt of the copy of

this order failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12%. There shall be no order as to costs. It is hereby clarified that it

will be open to the respondent-authorities to make deduction of the ordinary family pension which is being paid already to the petitioner.

Petition allowed.