DARSHNA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners late husband Shri Bidhi Singh was enrolled in the Regiment of Artillery on 7th June, 1960. He was transferred to Pension Establishment with effect from 31.8.1975. He was granted service pension at the rate of Rs. 76/ - per month with affect from 1.9.1975. He got himself re -enrolled in Defence Security Corps (in short DSC) on 30.12.1983. He was admitted to 148 Base Hospital on 11.3.1986 and was discharged on 26.4.1986. He was again admitted to 148 Base Hospital on 26.5.1986 and was discharged from there on 13.6.1986. He was diagnosed as a case of CSMC (OPTD) and was placed in low medical category BEE (Permanent) with effect from 11.6.1986 and was subsequently placed in CEE (Permanent) with effect from 6.7.1990. He died on 3.1.1992. As per the report dated 3.1.1992 issued by the Doctor of B.J. Medical College and Sassoon General Hospitals, Pune the death was due to Ischaemic Heart Disease. As per the certificate of attributability issued by the Military Hospital, Kirkee on 30.1.1992 the cause of death Ischaemic Heart Disease was aggravated by Military Service due to the stress and strain of service. The special family pension claim in respect of the petitioner was initiated by the DSC Record Office and was submitted to the Chief Controller now (Principal Controller) of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabd vide letter dated 20.4.1992. The claim of the petitioner for special family pension was rejected by the PCDA (Pensions) Allahabad on 4.8.1992. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Ministry of Defence on 7.7.1993. The petitioner served a legal notice on 24.5.1999 pursuant to which she was informed that she is not entitled for special family pension.

(2.) MS . Salochna Kaundal had strenuously argued that the petitioner is entitled to get special family pension as per Regulation 213 of the Army Pension rules, 1961. She had forcefully contended that as per Annexure R -2, the cause of death of Shri Bidhi Singh was aggravated by military service due to stress and strain of service. She had also drawn the attention of the Court to the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry which was conducted on 29th January, 1992 for investigating into the circumstances, under which Shri Bidhi Singh died on 3rd January, 1992. Mr. Ravinder Thakur had supported the order dated 4.8.1992 and 7.7.1993 and had contended that the petitioner was not entitled to special family pension as she had already been paid family pension with effect from 4.1.1992 onwards. He also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to second service pension since her husband had not completed 15 years service in DSC. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

(3.) NOW the case of the petitioner for special family pension is to be viewed in view of Rule 213. The case of the petitioner was forwarded by the DSC Record Office for special family pension on 20.4.1992. The same was rejected by the PCDA (Pensions), Allahabad on 4.8.1992. Primarily the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the disease of Shri Bidhi Singh was neither attributable to nor aggravated by his military service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 7.7.1993. It is mentioned in the communication dated 7.7.1993 that there was no proof which could show that the death of Shri Bidhi Singh was caused due to pressure or any tension by military service and, as such, he did not die because of military service. The same position was reiterated while informing the petitioner by way of reply to the legal notice served by here. It is evident from the certificate of attributability issued by Military Hospital, Kirkee on 30.1.1992 that the cause of death of Shri Bidhi Singh was due to stress and strain of service. This fact was also concurred by the Higher Medical Authorities at Head Quarter, Maharashtra and Gujarat Area, Bombay and at Head Quarter Southern Command, Pune. The same position has been reiterated in the proceedings of Court Inquiry, dated 29th January, 1992 whereby the following opinion has been given : - The Court is of the opinion that : -