Union Of India And Others v. Smt Jaswinder Kaur And Another




    
    

  !"!

#$%&%


 

 '

...Petitioners

Versus

'('
 )



...Respondents

 ($  *+( % '
 '
( '
'
 *+( % '
,
)''

Present: Mr. Narender Kumar Vashisht, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners.

*****  '
( '
'
 -%.

+/   1.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure P1) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of Liberalized Family Pension instead of Special Family Pension from the next date of death of her husband i.e. from 03.04.2020.

2.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 3.

It is very unfortunate to note that after a period of approximately four years, the said order dated 22.04.2022 is being challenged and that too, where benefit of Liberalized Family pension has been granted to the spouse of an officer, who laid down his life while being in service. Rather than appreciating the conduct of the husband of

CWP69692026 (2) respondent No.1 in laying down the life while serving this country, respondent No.1 is being made to litigate in order to avail the benefit. 4.

Further, a benefit granted four years ago by a competent Court of law is yet to be implemented. The benefit which has been given to respondent No.1 is of "Liberalized Family Pension" instead of "Special Family Pension". The husband of respondent No.1 died while being on a
 military duty and while "tank biathlon competition trials" at Babina Field Firing Range were being conducted, wherein he had sustained a severe head injury on 01.04.2018, which resulted into his death on the very next day.

5.

The Tribunal has held that the said death of husband of respondent No.1 is covered under the category E of the Government Policy dated 31.01.2001 so as to entitle her with the benefit of Liberalized Family Pension instead of Special Family Pension. The category E of the Government Policy dated 31.01.2001 is as under :

           
  

 

 



  !"" #"   

 $ % 




&  "      "   

 ' # '' 6.

Once the husband of respondent No.1 sustained injury in a 'training exercise' or 'demonstration with live ammunition', the finding recorded by the Tribunal that respondent No.1 will be entitled for Liberalized Family Pension instead of Special Family Pension cannot be

CWP69692026 (3) treated as perverse to the Government Policy dated 31.01.2001. 7.

No other argument has been raised.

8.

Hence, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Tribunal, either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law, no
 

   

            

   



 9.

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. 10.

It is made clear that in case, respondent No.1 is not granted the benefit of order dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure P1) passed four years ago, within a period of 8 weeks from today, she will not only be entitled for interest upon the arrears but nonimplementation of the said order will also incur action under the Contempt of Courts Act. . '
( '
'
/   .,
)''

/ (0 1-     Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No