SULOCHNA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regulation 213 of the Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 envisages a special pension to the family of an individual in the following circumstances:

(2.) Late Havildar Ishwar Singh Yadav was posted in Delhi Cantt. way back in the year 1985 when he died of a sudden heart attack. The petitioner, who happens to be his widow, was granted family pension in terms of the Rules on the subject. She appears to have made a claim for grant of special family pension in terms of Regulation 213 referred to above. That prayer was rejected by the respondents in November, 1986 on the ground that the death of Havildar Ishwar Singh Yadav was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The petitioner was further informed that, if aggrieved, she could prefer an appeal against the decision taken by the authorities on or before 20th March, 1987. The petitioner does not appear to have preferred any appeal despite the said communication till about 18 years later when she filed a petition before the Officer-in-Charge (Records), Army Ordinance Corps, Secunderabad. The said petition was, however, turned down by a communication dated 28th January, 2005 inter alia pointing out that the petitioner could and ought to have preferred an appeal against the order rejecting her claim for special family pension before the 20th March, 1987 and that since she had failed to do so, the Records Office was unable to help her at this belated stage. The petitioner appears to have then filed an appeal in February, 2006 against the order rejecting her claim for payment of special family pension which has also been turned down by order dated 2nd March, 2006 pointing out that the respondents cannot help her out of the situation at this belated stage. The present writ petition now calls in question the correctness of the said order and prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to grant special family pension to the petitioner.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. The claim for special family pension made by the petitioner in the year 1986 was rejected under intimation to the petitioner more than 20 years back. Having failed to assail the said rejection order in an appeal or before the competent court for nearly two decades any challenge to the denial of special family pension is at the present stage barred by unexplained delay and laches. There is, in the writ petition, no explanation, leave alone a cogent and acceptable one, as to why the petitioner slept over the matter for such a long period. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was unaware of her legal rights. We regret our inability to accept that submission. The petitioner ought to have diligently pursued her claim for payment of special family pension in an appropriate appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority or before the competent jurisdictional court. Having failed to do so she cannot wake up two decades later to make a stale claim. That apart, the petitioner s claim remains unsupported by any material to prima facie convince this Court that the death of her husband occurred due to any disease which was attributable to or aggravated by military service. It is common ground that the husband of the petitioner had died of a heart attack while posted at Delhi Cantt. There is nothing before us to suggest that the heart attack or any cardiac disease which may have caused the same was relatable to military service or aggravated by such service. The claim for special family pension was in the absence of any such reason rightly rejected by the authorities.