CHARANJIT KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is a glaring example of gross negligence and callousness on the part of the authorities and the consequent indescribable mental torment and physical and financial hardship caused to the widow and the two minor children of an Army Officer. The apathy and the extremely casual attitude adopted by the concerned officers travelled even to the proceedings in this Court and are writ large on the affidavit in reply which they have filed in response to the petition.

(2.) According to the authorities, after Mukhbain Singh complained of chest pain at Kargil he was evacuated to Leh on 16-6-1978. He was advised transfer to Ambala on 22nd Jan., 1978. The transfer according to the authorities, "was not an emergency one". It is also the case of the authorities that it is Mukhbain Singh who did not board the plane on 23-1-1978. According to them, on that day he had gone to attend to some private business in the cook house and later his charred body was found with 98 per cent burns due to kerosene oil leading to irreversible shock. This was at 0803 hours on that day.

(3.) According to the petitioner, her husband's death took place in mysterious circumstances, particularly because when she saw her husband, he was unable to move around. It was, therefore, understandable as to how he could, on his own, move around to receive the said burns. He was in fact brought to the air-base at Leh from the Army Hospital in the custody of the Army Specialists according to the authorities, and was supposed to be in their custody till he was to board the plane. Hence she protested to the authorities at Leh, upon which she was told that the matter would be investigated and it is only after the investigation that she would be informed about the circumstances leading to her husband's death. Thereafter, she wrote several letters to the authorities for communicating to her the result of the enquiry; but only a few of the letters were answered intimating her that she would be informed in the matter when the report would become available. After more than seven years, the finding of the enquiry was that the death of her husband was not attributable to military service. She applied for a copy of the enquiry report so that she could challenge the same in appeal and claim Special Family Pension and Children Allowance. The authorities, however, refused to give her a copy of the report stating that it was a highly confidential document.