Union Of India And Others v. Smt Raj Bala And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on :07.08.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

SMT RAJ BALA AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN S INGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioner-UOI.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, by which, the benefit of special family pension has been allowed in favour of the respondent No. 1. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grant of benefit of special family pension by the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the death of husband of the respondent No. 1 has occurred after the period of 16 years from the date of his discharge from service due to the ailment suffered by the deceasedhusband of the respondent No. 1 which was attributed to the military services, is incorrect.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the Entitlement Rules For Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 (herein after referred to 1982 Rules), as amended in the year 2008, if a death take place after 10 years of the date of discharge/retirement of the officer, the benefit of doubt will go to the State, hence, the benefit of doubt should go to the State as per the said 1982 Rules and the impugned order dated 01.10.2019 granting the benefit of special family pension to respondent No. 1 may kindly be set-

-2aside.

4.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 5.

It may be noticed that while recording the findings in the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the death of the husband of respondent No. 1, who was invalidated from service on account of the disability suffered, which was attributed to the military service, is the same cause which has been recorded in the death certificate. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the said fact.

7.

Once, the death of husband of respondent No. 1 is due to the disease, which is attributed to the military service, the benefit of special family pension has rightly been granted to the respondent No. 1 by the Tribunal.

8.

As far as the interpretation of the 1982 Rules being brought into the operation that if the death of the officer takes place after ten years from the date the officer concerned is invalidated from the service, the benefit of doubt will go to the State, the same can only be brought in operation in case, there is a doubt with regard to the cause of the death of the officer concerned. Where, the death is due to the same ailment which has been attributed to the military service, the benefit of doubt cannot be granted to the State as, the death is due to a disease which is already attributed to the military service.

9.

Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, as the death of the employee concerned i.e. husband of respondent No. 1 has occurred due to the same ailment which was attributed

-3to the military service, the benefit of doubt cannot be granted to the State, and
   

      

  
       
     


   





  

  




      

  


  
     

! 
   

 
 
 



     
  




     "
 
   
  
       
  
   #$



     
 "

%&$


  

  



     
               

   '   
      

 
( (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 07.08.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No