HONY CAPT VARDIP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Nos.2 & 3 who are the parents of the deceased Captain Manjinder Singh have filed this writ petition. Writ petition was filed as Captain Manjinder Singh Bhinder, his wife and son died in the devastating fire in Uphaar Cinema in New Delhi on 13-6-1997. It is the case of petitioners that late Captain Manjinder Singh Bhinder played a leading role by saving the life of 150 to 160 persons in that unfortunate tragedy. However, the respondents rejected the family pension as well as ordinary pension treating the death of Captain Manjinder Singh Bhinder neither attributable nor aggravated by the Military Service . Even the ordinary family pension claim of the parents was rejected on the ground that the Government of India has set up a mean limit of Rs. 2550/- per month with effect from Ist January, 1998 and thereby denied the ordinary family pension to the parents of Captain Manjinder Singh Bhinder.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that instead of saving himself, his wife and four years old son deceased helped other persons who were in that theater by guiding them and saving them from the fire and ultimately his wife and son also died and he sacrificed his life and that of his family and this act was so reported in the newspapers, T.V. and Radio also. Mr. Sehgal contended that the headquarter Delhi Area conducted the report of Inquiry which held that the death of Captain Manjinder Singh Bhinder was attributable to military service. It was also contended that the GOC-in-C also agreed with the report of Inquiry that the death caused to the said Manjinder Singh was attributable to military service. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The respondents have taken the plea that although the death of late Captain was not attributable to the military service. However, in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 and 19 of the counter affidavit the plea taken by the respondents is as under :-

(3.) Another additional affidavit was filed by the respondents on 17.11.2003. Paragraph no.2 of the said affidavit is important and reproduced below :