Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Bhateri Devi And Anr on 22 December, 2025
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi, Vikas Suri
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 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2025 04:35:57 ::: 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 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2025 04:35:58 ::: 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 Annexure II in paragraph B of Entitlement Rules, which are reproduced herein below would even show that stress and strain can lead to Heart Attack, and even the Tribunal has recorded a findings by placing reliance upon relevant rules that Heart Attack is not a one time sudden disease and occurs mostly due to stress and strain. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that heart attack/death of husband of respondent No. 1 cannot be said to having been aggravated by or attributed to the military service stands nullified.
"B Diseases Affected by Stress and Strain.
1. XXXXX
2. Hypertension (BP) 3 to 11 XXXXXX
12. Myocardial Infraction and other forms of IHD.
13 to 14 XXXXXXXXX"
6. In the present case, the army personnel died due to heart attack which he suffered while availing annual leave while in active service; the issue raised by the petitioner herein that since at the time when army personnel suffered a heart attack when he was on annual leave, he would not be entitled to benefit of special family pension, the said argument lacks girth to be accepted as for grant of special family pension as per regulation 213, death occurred must have been aggravated by the military service due to a disease which even existed prior to entering the military service, which aggravation has been shown to have fastened the death of husband of respondent NO. 1 and the same has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that heart attack was caused due to stress and strain of military service. Such stress and strain caused due to the military service leading to heart attack has 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2025 04:35:58 ::: 4 CWP-38241-2025 (O&M) to be attributed to military service and the aspect that whether the same happened during the time he was on annual leave is immaterial as the same could have happened at any point of time which leaves the said aspect immaterial that whether he was on active duty at that time or he was availing annual leave. Though, the said issue could have been dealt differently in case the army personnel concerned died after end of his service. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, merely that the heart attack was encountered with while the officer was availing casual leave, during which period also he was to be treated as being on duty, the same cannot be said to be not attributable to the military service.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also not been able to point out any fact that prior to availing the annual leave, the husband of respondent No.1 was not subject to hard, strenuous and stressful condition which led to occurrence of hear attack while he was on leave, especially when it is a conceded position that when the husband of respondent No.1 was recruited, he was medically checked up and was found to be fit and not suffering from the disease which ultimately was the cause of his death.
8. Further, the reliance is being placed upon Regulation 213 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 that the disease which is found to be attributable to the military service or aggravated by the military service has only to be taken into account for the grant of special family pension. As noted herein before, keeping in view the fact that the husband of respondent No.1 performed the duties with Indian Army for a period of 21 years and at the time of his recruitment, he was found to be fit and not suffering from the disease which ultimately was the cause of his death, keeping in view the stress, strain and the job profile, the heart disease, which is the cause of the death, has to be attributed to the military service.
9. No other argument has been raised.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2025 04:35:58 ::: 5 CWP-38241-2025 (O&M)
10. Hence, the facts and circumstances of the present case are covered under Regulation 213 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be treated as perverse either on facts of the case or the settled principle of law.
11. The present petition is disposed of in above terms. 12 Pending civil miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 22.12.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2025 04:35:58 :::