HARKAWALJIT BRAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a widow. She prays that the respondents be directed to grant her special family pension. The death of her husband was ''attributable to military service''. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner's husband Major G.S. Brar was initially commissioned in the Indian Army on September 22, 1974. In the year 1988, he was deputed to participate in the Republic Day parade which was to take place on January 26, 1989. He had reached Delhi on November 30, 1988. In the early hours of January 5, 1989, he felt certain discomfort and reported to the hospital. However, he died. On his death, the widow was granted the ordinary family pension. Vide letter dated March 2, 1989, she was informed that this pension was being sanctioned ''pending receipt of Government decision regarding attributability or otherwise of the cause of death ------- to military service''. The petitioner represented for the grant of special family pension. Her claim was rejected vide letter dated November 10, 1989, a copy of which is on record as Annexure P.2. It was decided that ''the cause of death viz. Coronary Occlusion of the ------- officer should be regarded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by his Army Service.'' On January 18, 1990, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Government of India, Vide letter dated February 20, 1991, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.5 with the writ petition, the petitioner's request was declined. The petitioner alleges that the death of her husband was attributable to military service. It had been so held during the inquiry conducted to ascertain the cause of death. A copy of the opinion expressed by the Court has been produced as Annexure P.6 with the writ petition. Consequently, the petitioner alleges that the action of the respondents in declining her request for the payment of special family pension is unfair and arbitrary. She prays that the impugned orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to sanction the special family pension.

(3.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter alia averred that the petitioner had ''first reported sick on 5 Jan, 89 at 0500 hours to the nursing assistant on duty at Republic Day Parade Camp along with Capt KGS Rathore''. He was advised to go to Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt for treatment. He declined to be evacuated to the Base Hospital, and returned to the Camp. However, he again came to the MI Room and within minutes collapsed and died. It is a constitutional disease which is neither caused nor aggravated by the conditions of service. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of special family pension. It has been further submitted that even after the rejection of the appeal submitted by the petitioner, she had submitted another appeal. It was examined by the defence Ministry's Appellate Committee on Pensions. There was no evidence of any exceptional physical or mental stress and strain. Even the duties assigned to the officer for 14 days prior to his death were of routine nature commensurate with his rank and service. Consequently, the request was declined.