Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ramanti Devi Wife Of Late Signalman ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 26 April, 2006
Author: A.K. Shrivastava
Bench: A.K. Shrivastava
ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking relief to provide benefit of Special Family Pension.
2. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as per para 213 of Pension Regulation, 1961 for Army the Special Family Pension will be granted to the family of an individual if his death was due to wound, injury or disease which was attributable to military service. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Kedar Prasad was in military service. He died on 26.4.1993 when he was availing the casual leave. In that regard my attention has been drawn to Annexure P/3 which is a letter dated 12th August, 1996 of Under Secretary to the Government of India addressed to the petitioner that her husband Late Kedar Prasad died due to head injuries on 26.4.1993 while on casual leave. In the said letter it has been further mentioned that Kedar Prasad was granted casual leave from 16.4.1993 to 30.4.1993. By inviting my attention to Leave Rules for Army Services, Rule 9, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the casual leave counts as duty except as provided for in Rule 10(a). Thus, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since admittedly the husband of the petitioner was availing casual leave and he was in military service, therefore, since he died on account of head injuries, his death would come under the ambit and sweep of Clause (a) of para 213 of the Regulation, and hence, petitioner is entitled for Special Family Pension.
3. It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per Appendix II.6 the injuries sustained when the man is on duty will be deemed to have arisen in or resulted from Army service unless they were self-inflicted or due to serious negligence or misconduct in which case the question of withholding the pension in full or in part will be considered. By inviting my attention to Clause (c) it has also been contended that a person is also deemed to be 'on duty' during the period of participation in recrection, organized or permitted by Service Authorities and of travelling in a body or singly under organized arrangements. A person is also considered to be 'ON DUTY' when proceeding to his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station at "PUBLIC EXPENSE". The contention is that since husband of the petitioner was beaten by miscreants, therefore, under these clauses, the husband of the petitioner would be deemed to be in the military service and if that is the position, the petitioner is entitled for Special Family Pension.
4. Per contra Shri K.K. Singh, learned Counsel for respondents by inviting my attention to the averments made in the return has contended that the authorities while deciding the second appeal dated 5.10.1999 preferred by the petitioner held that the Committee did not find any ground to alter the decision of the first appellate Committee communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.8.1996. This fact was also communicated to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 14.3.2002. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for Special Family Pension.
5. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the vie that this petition deserves to be allowed.
6. On going through Annexure P/3 dated 12th August, 1996 it is gathered that the respondents did not dispute the fact that husband of the petitioner Late Kedar Prasad died due to Head Injuries on 26.4.1993 while on casual leave. In the letter Annexure P/3 it has been further mentioned that the husband of the petitioner Kedar Prasad was granted casual leave from 16.4.1993 to 30.4.1993. It has been further mentioned in the said letter that the husband of the petitioner was beaten by the group of villagers while he was sitting on the gate of his house. On that ground it has been held by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for Special Family Pension.
7. On bare perusal of annexure P/3, one fact is clear that the husband of the petitioner died on 26.4.1993 when he was availing the casual leave. He also died on account of head injuries sustained to him and which were caused by the group of villagers. On bare perusal of Regulation 213 which speaks about providing a Special Family Pension which would be granted to the family of an individual if his death was due to a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to military service. On going through Appendix II.6 it is gathered that the injuries sustained when the man is on duty will be deemed to have arisen in or resulted from Army/Naval/Air Force Service unless they were self-inflicted or due to serious negligence or misconduct in which case the question of withholding the pension in full or in part will be considered. The injuries which were sustained by the husband of the petitioner were neither self-inflicted nor due to serious negligence nor misconduct and therefore according to Regulation Para 213 the petitioner is entitled to Special Family Pension.
8. The casual leave has also been defined under Leave Rules for the Army and according to Rule 9 casual leave counts as duty except as provided for in Rule 10(a). Admittedly, Rule 10(a) is not applicable in the present case. Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for Special Family Pension.
9. Resultantly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to provide Special Family Pension to the petitioner. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.