Punjab-Haryana High Court
Megh Raj vs Union Of India on 2 February, 2001
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. Shri Megh Raj has filed the present writ petition against the respondents and he has prayed that the action of the respondents be quashed when they are not inclined to release the family pension to the petitioner on account of the death of his son Sepoy Dharambir. It was further prayed by the petitioner that directions be given to the respondents to release the family pension to the peiitioner on account of the death of his son.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that his son Dharambir was employed as a soldier in the Army on 12.9.85 and he was allotted Army No. 14585428. On 24.5.1988, his son died on duty due to stomach pain at home while he was serving in the army. The petitioner moved an application for the grant of family pension. He also furnished all the documents but the claim of the family pension was declined by the respondent-authorities on the plea that the death of Shri Dharambir was due to the disease which was neither attributable nor aggravated by the military service. This order was passed on 25.7.1990. The petitioner filed a representation in the year 1991 for the release of the benefit of the family pension but to no effect. He also filed an appeal which was dismissed on 9.11.1992 on the same ground which was taken earlier by the respondenls in the communication dated 25.7.1990. The petitioner also filed a mercy petition but to no effect. Hence, the present writ petition in the year 1998.
3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. They denied the allegations of the writ petitioner and the case set up by the respondenls is that since the death of the petitioner took place when he was on annual leave at his house, therefore, the death of the son of the peiitioner is not attributable to the army service nor it is aggravated by the army service.
4. I have heard Shri A.K. Rampal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Government of India. Ministry of Defence, has framed a new policy according to which the ordinary pension is permissible even to the father of a soldier irrespective of the fact that the death of a soldier had taken place prior to 1. 1. 1998. It was the contention of Mr. Sehgal lhat though the case of the petitioner for special family pension is not made out but the case of ordinary pension can be considered by the Government of India as per the aforesaid new policy.
Without giving any decision whether the petitioner is entitled to the family pension or not this petition is hereby disposed of with the direction to the respondents to release the benefit of ordinary pension to the petitioner, with effect from 1.1.1998, 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%. No order as to costs.
6. Petition disposed of.