UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAMANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The central and essentially fundamental issue that emanates for adjudication in this intra -court appeal preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth to Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 [for brevity 'the Act'] wherein the assail is to the order dated 26.04.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he has come to hold that the Respondent is entitled to the special family pension, is whether the view expressed is warrantable and presentable on the bedrock of principles of statutory interpretation or is it to be regarded pregnable and unacceptable because of special features attached to conception of special family pension if understood in a purposive context and appreciated in proper perspective inasmuch as the stand and stance in the appeal is that the dictionary facets of the eligibility criteria are totally different putting it on a singularly raised pedestal than other categories of pensions, namely, normal pension, disability pension and family pension, for Mr. Satish Chandra Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants would contend and emphatically propone that any event which eventually leads to death of the service holder, while in service for all purposes, would not be entitled to special family pension as something else, something plus or something special is imperative.

(2.) A counter affidavit was filed by the Respondent contending, inter alia, that her husband was enrolled in the Army on 11th May, 1984 and while serving with 36 Infantry Division, Signal Regiment he has gone to his village on casual leaves where he was injured and eventually breathed his last in the Military Hospital, Gaya due to multiple head injuries sustained by him. The husband had rendered 8 years and 351 days service in the Army. The Respondent was paying the family pension and a sum of Rs. 12,000/ - was also granted on account of death -cum -retirement gratuity and the said aspect was communicated to the Respondent. It was also put forth that initially rejection was called in question in an appeal which was adjudicated by the competent authority but the same was rejected. A second appeal being preferred was considered by the Defence Minister/Appellate Committee on Pension but the Committee did not find any ground to alter the decision of the first appellate committee communicated to the Respondent by letter dated 12.08.1996. It was further contended that his death having no connection with the Military Service and she was not fit to get the benefit of Regulation 213 and hence, the claim has been rightly rejected.

(3.) The learned Single Judge interpreting the Regulation 213 and Rule 9 and the concept of casual leave came to hold that as the husband of the Respondent was in causal leave and the said casual leave is countable towards the duty except as provided in Rule 10(a) the Petitioner is entitled to special family pension.