SMT. SHASHI KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Shashi Kumari widow of Shri Narbahadur, who was a Sepoy in the Indian Army, has filed the present writ petition against the respondents under Article 226/ of the Constitution of India praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued against the respondents by quashing the orders dated 27.4.1974 Annexure P3, 26.5.1998 Annexure P6, 17.9.1998 Annexure P8, vide which her claim for grant of disability pension from the date of discharge of her husband was rejected. She has further prayed that she be granted disability pension which was due to her husband from the date of his discharge upto 6.6.1995 when her husband died and thereafter she be granted family pension w.e.f. 7.6.1995 onwards.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that her husband Shri Narbahadur was recruited in the Indian Army as Sepoy on 6.8.1985 and at the time of recruitment he was physically and mentally fit. His service record was meticulously spotless. There was no red or adverse report of any kind against him during his entire service period. Her husband served Indian Army at various stations. On 12.4.1989, the husband of the petitioner was deployed in Leh along with his Regiment and there he suffered mental attack due to hard and severe working conditions at high altitude and then he was diagnosed as a case of "seizure". On 1.6.1990, he was placed permanently under low medical category "C" by the Medical Board. On 11.12.1991 he was served with a show cause notice and on 15.12.1991 the husband of the petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice but without considering the same he was discharged from the Army vide certificate Annexure P2 and at the time of discharge he was paid Rs. 22,598/ - as Armed Force Provident Fund. Her husband represented to the Chief of Army Staff on 27.4.1994 stating that his disability is attributable to the Military service because he was physically and mentally fit at the time of recruitment. But his claim for disability pension was rejected vide order Annexure P3, against which he again made representation Annexure P4. Unfortunately for the petitioner, her husband died on 6.6.1995 and she issued various remainders but to no effect. The petitioner also made a prayer for grant of family pension but the same was also declined on the ground that her husband was a non -pensioner and thus she was not entitled to any pension as per rules. With this background the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.