Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karamjit Kaur Wife Of Naik Chamkaur ... vs Union Of India And Others on 9 October, 2009
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
CWP No.3240 of 2006 :1 :
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 09.10.2009
Karamjit Kaur wife of Naik Chamkaur Singh No.3389402-L
... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr.Saurabh Garg, Advocate,for the petitioner.
Ms.Geeta Singhwal, Advocate,for the respondents.
PERMOD KOHLI, J.
In the year 1990, the husband of the petitioner was enrolled in the Army. He served the army upto 2002 and promoted to the rank of Naik. On 18.03.2002 the petitioner received a telephonic message that her husband was missing. In the month of April, 2002, the petitioner visited the Unit of her husband and other places to know his whereabouts, but to no avail. First Information Report was also lodged in this regard. The petitioner made representations for grant of service benefits of her husband to her. The petitioner was informed that service benefits of her husband would be paid after a period of 10 years of the occurrence. On 22.06.2004 the petitioner asked to submit indemnity bond which was submitted on 13.07.2004 along with the CWP No.3240 of 2006 :2 : police report/investigation. Vide letter dated 14.09.2005 the petitioner was informed by the respondents that her husband is absent and cannot be treated as missing or a case of disappearance. It is under these circumstances the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for grant of service benefits of her husband i.e. salary, leave encashment, armed forces provident fund, family pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity etc. The petitioner has heavily relied upon instructions dated 03.06.1988 regarding the release of DCRG, Leave Encashment, Family Pension etc. in respect of Armed Forces Personnel who are missing, on completion of period so mentioned therein as also after completion of certain formalities It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Sandhya Devi Parmar Vs. Union of India and another, 1997 (2) S.L.J., 1614, wherein the following directions/observations have been made:-
"However, it is seen that it is more than 10 years since the petitioner's husband was not heard of either by the petitioner or the other family members or the respondents. In such circumstances,a presumption arises under the provisions of the Evidence Act that he was dead. Hence, the petitioner will be entitled to CWP No.3240 of 2006 :3 : get the family pension and other service benefits due to her husband in accordance with the Rules.
Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the entitlement of the petitioner for family pension and other benefits in accordance with the Rules on the footing that her husband is presumed to be dead. The authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on that footing within a period of three months from this date and communicate their orders to the petitioner."
The above observations/directions are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner is entitled to the relief indicated above. However, arrears are restricted to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition.
09.10.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE