Union Of India vs C Rohini on 19 May, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Union Of India vs C Rohini on 19 May, 2025

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 order dated 29.07.2022 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.A.No.397 of 2018. The petitioners herein are the respondents, and the respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal.

2. Late Ex-Sepoy No.135528 K.Chathukutty was enrolled in the Indian Army on 11.05.1942 and discharged on 20.05.1944 on medical grounds. He died on 09.08.1962. Family pension was sanctioned to his wife Smt.C.Kallyani, who also died on 21.05.2009. After the death of Smt.C.Kallyani, the respondent approached the Army Authorities seeking family pension, claiming herself as an unmarried daughter of deceased K.Chathukutty. Her claim was rejected by the 3rd petitioner, holding that the name of 3 WP(C)No.16811 of 2025 2025:KER:34325 the respondent was not entered in the service documents of her late father. Being aggrieved, the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.397 of 2018, which was allowed by the impugned Ext.P3 order.

3. Heard Sri. M.A. Shaji, the learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners on admission.

4. The learned Central Government Counsel would submit that the respondent's claim before the Tribunal is a belated one. Moreover, the respondent has not produced any document before the Tribunal to prove that she is the daughter of late K. Chathukutty.

5. We have appreciated the arguments of the learned Central Government Counsel and the materials in the paper book. The petitioners have rejected the claim of the respondent mainly for the reason that the name and birth of the respondent have not been declared either by the deceased soldier Chathukutty or by his wife during their 4 WP(C)No.16811 of 2025 2025:KER:34325 lifetime. According to the petitioners, all the service records of late K. Chathukutty were destroyed by following the procedure and hence no documents are available to verify the entitlement of the respondent to claim the family pension of deceased Chathukutty.

6. Admittedly, the Sepoy K.Chathukutty was discharged from the Indian Army in the year 1944, whereas the respondent was born only on 12.03.1946. Therefore, as rightly found by the Tribunal, there was no possibility of including her name in the service records of Chathukutty till his discharge from service. From Annexure A3 records of disbursement showing payment of Children's allowance to the respondent and Annexure A15, a true copy of certificate dated 19.04.2018 issued by the Sub Treasury Officer of Thalassery, it is evident that the respondent was given Children's allowance from 10.08.1962 to 31.12.2004 in her capacity as the daughter of the deceased K. Chathukutty. No 5 WP(C)No.16811 of 2025 2025:KER:34325 explanation is offered by the petitioners for these documents. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in reaching a finding that the respondent is the daughter of Ex-Sepoy K. Chathukutty.

7. As far as the contention of belated claim raised by the petitioners is concerned, it is pertinent to note that Annexures A4 to A13 documents would show that the respondent has filed various applications before the petitioners from the year 2015 onwards, claiming family pension. In none of the replies or orders rejecting the claim, the petitioners took a stand that the claim of the respondent is not allowable for the reason of delay. The respondent approached the Tribunal when her claim was finally rejected by the 3rd petitioner by Annexure A12 order dated 12.07.2017. The application seems not to have been opposed on the ground of limitation. Moreover, it is trite that where a service/pension related claim is based on a continuing wrong, 6 WP(C)No.16811 of 2025 2025:KER:34325 relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking the remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury, in other words it is recurring cause of action. The only rider that would be applicable in entertaining such claims is that the consequential relief relating to arrears must normally be limited to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the claim (See: Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648])

8. It is also worth to note at this juncture that as per section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, the Tribunal can entertain an application even after the period stated in that section, when presented with a proper explanation for delay (See: Union of India v. Colonel Shashi Thomas (IC 402104)(Retd.) [2024 (5) KHC 327]. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the 7 WP(C)No.16811 of 2025 2025:KER:34325 contention of limitation raised by the petitioners.

9. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.

In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Sd/-



                              MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE


sks
                                    8
WP(C)No.16811 of 2025                               2025:KER:34325
                    APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16811/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1              TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.

397/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO.

397/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL DATED 29.07.2022 IN OA NO. 397/2018

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court