SAMAJ KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 8.1.1966 and after rendering service of around 15 years and 4 months, he retired from the Army on 7.5.1981 on completion of the terms of engagement. Thereafter on 1.5.1984 he was re-enrolled in the Army in Defence Security Corps. As per Army procedure, husband of the petitioner was again examined by the medical authorities before his re-enrolment in the Army and was found to be medically and physically fit in all respects. The duty of the husband of the petitioner was of such a nature which involved long and continuous hours of duty, as a result of which he started having health problems for which he was admitted and treated as a case of hypertension and was placed in low medical category. On 8.6.1998, while he was on duty, he suffered from a heart attack and was admitted in military hospital. On 14.6.1998 while he was at the military hospital, he died. That since husband of the petitioner died while performing his duty and attributable to military service, the petitioner is entitled for grant of special family pension, as per Regulation 213 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 Part I. The claim for special family pension in respect of the petitioner was submitted duly sanctioned to the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'CCDA(P)'), vide letter dated 25.9.1998. But the case of the petitioner for special family pension was rejected by CCDA(P) in an arbitrary and illegal manner and only ordinary family pension was granted to her vide letter dated 29.12.1998. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the decision of the CCDA(P) on 5.5.1999 but of no avail. Petitioner issued a notice dated 27.1.2005 through her advocate to the respondents. The respondents vide their letter dated 5.5.2005 have again intimated to the petitioner that her claim of special family pension was rejected by the CCDA (P). Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, petitioner ultimately filed the present petition.-.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the special family pension in terms of Regulation. 213 of Pension Regulation forthe Army 1961 Part I. The late husband of petitioner was suffering from Primary Hypertension and Cervical Spondylisis. It is further submitted that the death of late husband of the petitioner was due to Ischaemic Heart disease (unstable Angina). The diseases from which petitioner's husband was suffering are classified diseases and are attributable to military service as per Pension Regulation and Guide to Medical Officer (Military Pension). It is submitted that the petitioner's husband had no disease at the time of his re-enrolment in Defence Security Corps on 1 May, 1984.