Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Smt. Kala Devi on 10 January, 2013
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
RSA No. 4584 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 4584 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: January 10, 2013
Union of India and others
...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Kala Devi
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: - Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant
Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate,
for the respondent.
A.N. JINDAL, J.
Kala Devi, on the death of her husband Shri Virender Singh Yadav, Deputy Superintendent of Police of 79 Battalion, C.R.P.F. , who was killed by the terrorists, filed a suit for full pension, which was dismissed by the trial court on 7.12.2010, but the first appellate court, vide judgment dated 16.8.2011 accepted the appeal and held the plaintiff/respondent entitled to the family pension equal to last pay drawn by her husband, as per para 4 of the relevant instructions. The family pension was payable to her till her life or unless she re-marries. She was also held entitled to consequent arrears as would be admissible to her on fixation of family pension.
Aggrieved against the said judgment, the Union of India has preferred the present appeal. It has been urged that Shri Virender Singh Yadav was travelling in a jeep on 18.9.1987 and when he was about 5 kms short of Amritsar, an accident took place whereupon, Shri Virender Singh RSA No. 4584 of 2011 2 Yadav, suffered injuries and ultimately he succumbed to the injuries. The driver of the jeep was also injured. Resultantly, an FIR was registered on 18.9.1987. According to the Union of India, it was a case of accident whereas the plaintiff alleged that Shri Virender Singh Yadav was killed by the terrorists. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, the first appellate court reversed the judgment and decreed the suit in the above said terms.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
There is no denying fact that in light of Section (c) and (d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, the deceased was a member of the Force for the pensionary benefits on account of such member of the Force, but governed by Government of India Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, O.M. No. 33/5/89-P P.W. (K), dated 9.4.1990 as modified by O.M. No. 45/22/97-P & P.W. (C) dated 3.2.2000. Sub Rule 3 of the said Rules discusses its scope by mentioning that these rules apply to the Government servant in the following circumstances.
"Category 'D' "Death or disability attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, anti-social elements, etc., whether in their performance of duties or otherwise. Apart from cases of death or injury sustained by personnel of the Central Police Organizations while employed in aid of the civil administration in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrations, other police servants including Police personnel, etc., bomb blasts in public places or transport, indiscriminate shooting incidents, in public etc., would be covered under this category." RSA No. 4584 of 2011 3
Category 'E' "Death or disability arising as a result of (a) attack by or during action against extremists, anti-social elements, etc., and (b) enemy action in international war or border skirmishes and warlike situations, including cases which are attributable to (i) extremists acts, exploding mines, etc., while on way to an operational area, (ii) kidnapping by extremists; and (iii) battle inoculation as part of training exercises with live ammunition." Benefit of family in the event of death of such member of the armed force was to be given as per category 'D' and 'E'.
It is not disputed that the appellant is a widow of deceased and she was entitled to family pension equal to the pay last drawn by her husband, if his death takes place in the circumstances as covered by categories 'D' and 'E' The said family pension was admissible to her for life or unless she re-marries. The plaintiff in her plaint specifically pleaded that her husband died on 18.9.1987 while indulging in anti-terrorists activities. In para No. 4 of the plaint, she pleaded that the terrorists had blown the vehicle of Shri Virender Singh Yadav with bomb. The Union of India did not file any written statement in order to controvert the plea, as set up by the plaintiff/respondent, though she had sent a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to defendant No.1, but the same was not responded to.
In order to corroborate the plea, the plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW2 and tendered affidavit PW2/A which also proved that Shri Virender Singh Yadav died as a result of terrorists attack. Not only this, there is another certificate issued by the Advisor to Government RSA No. 4584 of 2011 4 Punjab, Chandigarh dated 1.9.1988 mark A, which was sent by Shri J.F. Riberio, in the capacity of Advisor to the Government of Punjab to Shri Brahm Dutt, Minister of State for Petroleum Government of India, New Delhi, admitting that Shri Virender Singh Yadav was killed by the terrorists. Again there is another certificate issued by the Directorate General Central Reserve Police Force, Police Block 1, Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, which reads as under:-
"Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya CERTIFICATE Certified that Shri V.S. Yadav, Dy. S.P. Of 79 Battalion, C.R.P.F. Has died on 18.9.1987 while he was on Government duty in District Amritsar (Punjab)."
Despite opportunities given to the appellants, they did not lead any evidence and their defence was struck off on 25.7.2005. It needs to be observed that the defendants had filed a civil revision before this Court against the said order way order way back in 2008, which was also dismissed by this Court. Further, no suggestion was put to PW2 on behalf of defendants No.1 to 3/appellants that no letter was written by Shri J.F. Riberio to the Petroleum Ministry. Once, these facts are no disputed, then the appellants could not wriggle out of the fact that Shri Virender Singh Yadav was killed by the terrorists and he did not die as a result of accident. Consequently, his wife was entitled to special pension equal to the last pay drawn by her deceased husband.
However, counsel for the respondent has not disputed that since Shri Virender Singh Yadav died on 18.9.1987 and the suit was filed long after on 12.3.2005 for claiming family pension and it was decreed on RSA No. 4584 of 2011 5 16.8.2011, therefore, restriction of the arrears of difference between the family pension which she received and the special family equal to last pay drawn to 38 months immediately prior to the filing of the suit would be acceptable to her.
No other argument has been raised. The judgment of the first appellate court, on scrutiny is found to be well reasoned suggesting no interference by this Court.
No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.
Dismissed with the modification in the impugned judgment that arrears of difference between the family pension, which the appellant is drawing and the special pension equal to the last pay drawn shall be restricted to 38 months immediately prior to the filing of the suit.
January 10, 2013 (A.N. JINDAL) prem JUDGE