MADHAVI AMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's son was enrolled as Sepoy on 6-2-1969 in the Armed Forces, Medical College, Pune. He had about 6 years 324 days service when he died on 26-12-1975. The communication intimating this sad news to the petitioner's husband reads as under:-

(2.) The respondent in the counter affidavit stated that the deceased took part in unit games on 26-12-75 from 16.30 hrs. to 17.10 hrs. He also performed other routine duties on 26-12-75 as per charter of duties held on records. He was put on routine night duty on 26-12-75. He died on 26-12-75 at 22.05 hrs. due to acute left ventricular failure following coronary occlusion. From these facts it clear that he died of heart attack while on duty.

(3.) The family pension is not available to father and mother according to the Entitlement Rules because they would not come within the definition of family for the purpose of family pension. But it is an admitted fact for the benefit of special family pension the petitioner being the mother of the deceased is entitled if cause of the death was attributable to military service or aggravated by military service. Petitioner applied for special family pension on 16-11-76. But by Ext. P4 dated 21st October, 1977, the same was denied to the petitioner. The Captain, Record Officer, OIC Records AMC stated that the family pension claim in respect of the deceased was rejected on the ground that the cause of death was neither attributable to nor aggravated by his Military service. Ext. P4 also stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved, she can file an appeal to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi within a period of 6 months. Appeal had been filed on 28-11-1977, but the same was rejected by Ext. P6 by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. In that also it is stated further appeal could be filed to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence. Petitioner thus filed an appeal to the Ministry of Defence ie. Ext. P7. It was rejected by Ext. P9 dated 8-1-81. In that it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to special family pension and that further representations on the subject will not serve any useful purpose. Even thereafter, it would appear, petitioner made representation which also met with the same fate. Ultimately, he filed a representation dated 22-11-88 to the President of India, which remain undisposed of.