INDER KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A soldier's widow who is stated to be more than 100 years old seeks crumbs of family pension. The thumb impression on the petition is symbolic of her being illiterate. Undaunted she has gone from pillar to post trying to persuade Army authorities to give her the family pension. Having failed, she has approached this Court through the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner claims that her husband, Prabhu Singh, joined the State Forces in the erstwhile Princely State of Patiala as a Sepoy in the year 1904. He was allotted Service No. 447 and was allocated to Company No. 3 of Ist Patiala Infantry, Prabhu Singh fought as an active combatant during the First World War which started in the year 1914. In the year 1917 he was injured. He was discharged from the Service and given pension. Initially he was paid pension in the erstwhile State of Patiala from the Treasury at Bassi. In the year 1944, it is stated by the petitioner that the liability of pension was taken over by the Government and he was allotted pension payment order No. 32 by the Deputy Accountant General, Patiala. He was paid pension at the rate of Rs. 6/- per month. On July 6, 1950, Prabhu Singh died. A copy of the Death Certificate is at Annexure P1 to the petition. The, petitioner claims that after the death of her husband, she deposited the pension book of her husband in the treasury at Bassi, District Patiala. She also claims to have drawn the last payment of the pension. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, no pension was given to her.

(3.) In the year 1985, the Supreme Court of India noticed with "approbation and commendation" that the "promise of socio-economic justice depicted in rosy language in Articles 38, 39 and 41 is being translated into a real action-oriented programme by the stand taken by the Union of India and the Ministry of Finance in this group of petitions and application for special leave .......", the Government of India had given certain undertakings before the Court which were recorded by their Lordships in Smt. Poonamal v. Union of India, 1985 2 SLR 537 Para Nos. 8 and 9 may be instructively reproduced :-