LAWS(P&H)-2008-2-409

PREMWATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Decided On February 15, 2008
PREMWATI Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Husband of the petitioner Sgt. Ram Kanwar was on the posted strength of Western Air Command (U) Air Force Station, Subroto Park, New Delhi. He was detailed for station duty on August 26, 1989. He left for duty on his scooter from his residence at about 1100 hrs. He met with an accident with a bus near his Unit and died of multiple injuries on August 26, 1989 in Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. The petitioner was granted Ordinary Family Pension. Claim of the petitioner for Special Family Pension was rejected on the ground that death of Sgt. Ram Kanwar was not attributable to or aggravated by Air Force Service.

(2.) In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the action of the Army Authorities whereby case of the petitioner for Special Family Pension has been rejected and it is prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to release the same to the petitioner from the date of her husband's death.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondents, the first objection taken is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as husband of the petitioner had died in road accident at Delhi. Further, it has been pleaded that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The petitioner's husband died in road accident in 1989 and the pension claim was rejected on April 01, 1991. The petitioner has approached this Court after the expiry of fifteen years. The appeal against the order rejecting Special Family Pension was also not filed in time. It has been further averred that medical documents of the petitioner's husband have been destroyed after stipulation retention period of fifteen years from the date of death. It is further pleaded that the cause of death of the late Airman was not considered as attributable to service by the Pension Sanctioning Authority and hence the claim for Special Family Pension was rejected and the petitioner was granted Ordinary Family Pension.