UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Union of India is directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of C.W.P. No. 12987 of 1994 filed by Smt. Surinder Kaur mother of Lance Nayak Balwinder Singh Cheema. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had agreed that the controversy was squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Premwati v. Union of India and Ors., 2008 3 SLR 531 Her son was enrolled in the Indian Army on 17.03.1988. He was granted four days' leave from 01.09.1991 to 04.09.1991 for participating in tournaments. During the leave period, he met with an accident and died in the Civil Hospital at Fatehgarh Sahib. He has named his mother as next of kin. All the dues of the son of the petitioner, like gratuity, insurance, welfare contribution have been paid to her. However, her claim for grant of Special Family Pension/Ordinary Family Pension has been rejected by the appellants vide order dated 21.10.1993. Learned Counsel for the appellants gave concession by stating that matter was covered in favour of the petitioner-respondent by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Premwati's case (supra). The relevant part of the judgment reads thus:

(2.) Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that no pension would be admissible to the petitioner-respondent because the death of her son cannot be attributed to military service as her son was on leave. She has also argued that the judgment in Premwati's case (supra) has been stayed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that instant appeal is without any merit. Firstly, the appellants have agreed before the learned Single Judge that the matter was covered against them by a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Premwati's case (supra). It is not now open to them to dispute the aforesaid concession. With regard to second issue of stay of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it may be observed that there are no details available except a bald assertion. Moreover, the view taken by this Court in the case of Roshan Jagdish Lal Duggal v. P.S.E.B., 1984 2 SLR is that the stay of the judgment would not deplete its precidential value. In para 11, this Court has made following observations: