UNION OF INDIA & ORS Vs. PREETI SIDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Union of India, Chief of the Army Staff and an other officer, is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2010 rendered in OWP No. 393/2006 holding that the writ petitioner-respondent is entitled to grant of Liberalized Family Pension in terms of Part-II Para 4.1 Category "D" & "E" of the letter dated 31.1.2001 issued by the appellants.

(2.) The learned Single Judge has held that the writ petitioner-respondent is entitled to grant of Liberalized Family Pension on the principal ground that hus band of the petitioner Lt. Col. A.S. Sidhu was deputed to operation known as 'Operation Parakaram' which was duly notified by the Govt. of India. It has been found that two conditions are required to be fulfilled to become entitled to Liberal ized Family Pension. According to the learned Single Judge both the conditions stood fulfilled because Lt. Col A. S. Sidhu suffered death which was attributable to the military service and the said operation was notified by the Govt. of India. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernable from the following paras of the impugned judgment which reads thus:

(3.) Mr. Pangotra learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the learned Single Judge by arguing that the death of Lt. Col A.S. Sidhu, husband of the writ petitioner-respondent was not covered by category "E" specified in the letter dated 31.1.2001. According to the learned counsel, in order to acquire right of payment under the Liberalized Family Pension it was required to be shown that the death was caused on account of enemy action in international war, action during deployment with a peace keeping mission abroad, border skirmishes, during laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also minesweeping operations, on account of accidental explosions of mines while laying operationally oriented mine-filed or lifting or negotiating mine-filed laid by the enemy or own forces in operational areas near international border or the line of control, war like situations, including cases which are attributable to or aggravated by: extremist acts, exploding mines etc, while on way to an operational area, battle inoculation training exercises on demonstration with live ammunition, kidnapped by extremists while on oper ational duty, an act of violence or attack by extremists, anti social elements etc while on operational duty, action against extremists, antisocial elements as is envisaged in para 4.1 category "E" of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, letter dated 31.1.2001. Mr. Pangotra has vehementally argued that the case of the respondent writ petitioner is not covered by category "E" and she was entitled to the special family pension and not the Liberalized Family Pension. The learned counsel has also submitted that the 'Operation Parkaram' was nothing but mobilization of the Army Units and did not contemplate any war or security of any officer or Jawan. The death of the husband of the writ petitioner-respondent was due to heart disease. He was covered under category "B" and his widow has been rightly given the special family pension.