Madras High CourtWP/48592/2025dismissed

Indral v. The Armed Force Tribunal,

2025-12-16Honourable The Chief Justice,Honourable Mr.Justice G.Arul Murugan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.12.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN Indral W/o.Late.Ex Sep Gr. Subramanian No.408/06, Vamsaviruthinagar Punnaiyapuram, Pulliyangudi Thirunelveli District-627 855.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Armed Force Tribunal Regional Bench, Old MH Building 1A, Rudra Road, St. Thomas Road Chennai-600 016.

2. Union of India Rep. by the Secretary Government Of India Ministry of Defence Room No.227 B-wing, Sena Bhavan New Delhi-110 011.

3. The Chief of Army Staff Army Headquarters Integrated Headquarters DHQ Post South Block, New Delhi-110 001.

4.The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad Uttar Pradesh-211 014.

5. The Deputy Directorate General DSC General Staff Branch IHQ of MoD (Army) West Block III R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110 066.

6. Senior Records Officer Raksha Suraksha Corps Abhilekh Defence Security Corps Records Mill Road Bumacherry Post, Kannur-627 013.

Respondent(s) Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in O.A. No.61 of 2020 dated 31.01.2023 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to grant the minimum pension benefits and grant other benefits to the petitioner which she is entitled to as a wife of deceased Army Man, enabling and protecting social security and fundamental rights.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.E.Thiyaga For Respondent(s):

Mr.V.Chandrasekaran Senior Panel Counsel

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The order under challenge in this petition does not warrant any interference for the sole reason that the very same issue with regard to claim of entitlement to pension by deceased exserviceman was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 03.12.2010 in T.A.No.27 of 2010. After rejection of the claim by the Tribunal, a representation was made to the authority, which was eventually rejected. Challenging that order, second petition was filed.

2. As the claim has already been adjudicated and petition was dismissed, the Tribunal, in our view, has rightly held that the second petition was not maintainable.

3. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, this order shall not come in the way of the widow of the deceased employee to

claim any benefit irrespective of whether or not her husband was entitled to pension. There shall be no order as to costs. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 16.12.2025 Index :

Yes/No Yes/No kpl To