Smt Savitri Devi wdo Late Sep Rameshwar (Army) vs UOI & Others on 28 January 2026

**ORDER**

**28.01.2026**

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA, praying for directing the Respondents to grant Service Pension for the lifetime of her husband for his first spell of service rendered in the Army and thereafter Family Pension to the Applicant from the death of her husband on 08.09.1997 and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 12% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant's was initially enrolled in the Army on 06.01.1951 and after rendering 16 years, 3 months and 11 days of service, he was discharged from Service on 16.04.1967 and was not granted any pensionary benefits. Thereafter, her husband got re-enrolled as Civilian Chowkidar in MH, Udaipur from where he was discharged from Service on 09.09.1997 for which he was granted Service Pension for life. After death of her husband on 08.09.1997, the Applicant has been granted Family Pension for the second spell of service rendered by her husband. The Applicant made representations and also issued Legal Notice to the Army Authorities for grant of Service Pension for lifetime of her husband for the first spell of service in the Army and thereafter Family Pension to the Applicant. However, the Respondents denied the same on the grounds that her husband was a non-pensioner and the name of his wife is recorded as "Smt Parbati" and not "Smt Savitri Devi". The Applicant submitted copies of PPO for grant of Family Pension for the Second Spell of service rendered by her husband, Discharge Book, Bank Pass Book, etc in support of her being the legally wedded wife of her husband, Late Sep Rameshwar but the Respondents paid no heed. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the OA has been filed after a long delay of more than 54 years of discharge of the deceased soldier and 24 years after death of her husband, therefore, the same is required to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Respondents have further submitted that the service documents of her husband have been destroyed after expiry of mandatory retention period. However, as per the Long Roll available, the Late NCSE Barber Rameshwar was enrolled in the Army on 06.01.1951 as a Non-Combatant (Enrolled) (NCSE) and was discharged from service from 16.04.1967 on fulfilling the condition of service. As per Rule 145 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1), for NCSE, the minimum qualifying service for earning Service Pension is 20 years (without weightage). In the present case, Late NCE Barber Rameshwar was enrolled as NCE and his total qualifying service works out to be less than 20 years (16 years, 3 months and 11 days) only. Therefore, he was not entitled for grant of Service Pension. However, he was paid a sum of Rs. 127.50 on account of Service Gratuity, as admissible to him at the time of discharge. Since, the Applicant's husband was not granted any pension at the time of his discharge, the Applicant is not eligible for grant of Family Pension in terms of Rule 212 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). Further, as per entries recorded in Long Roll, Late NCE Barber Rameshwar was married to Parbati and nominated her as heir to Estate and Family Pension. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant supplied copy Hon'ble AFT (PB), New Delhi Order dt 12.11.2024 in OA No 357/2016 in the case of *Shri Bhawani Dutt Notyal Vs UOI & Ors* and submitted that her husband was entitled for grant of Service Pension for the first spell of service rendered in the Army and, consequently, the Applicant is entitled for grant of Family Pension after death of her husband. On the point of long delay, Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed on record Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dt 06.08.2024 in CA Nos 1320-1321 of 2019 in the case of *Ex Cpl Ranganathan Nair Vs UOI & Ors* and submitted that delay in the cases of pensionary Benefits can be condoned, the pension being a recurring cause of action.


5. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6. Perusal of PPO dt 27.07.2018 placed on record by the Applicant reveals that the Applicant is legally wedded wife of Late Rameshwar and she has been granted Family Pension for the second spell of service rendered in MH, Udaipur as Chowkidar. After serving for 29 years, 7 months and 4 days of service as Chowkidar in MH, Udaipur, he died on 08.09.1997 for which the Applicant, Smt Savitri Devi has been granted Family Pension. As per the copies of Ration Card and her account details in Punjab National Bank, Losal, District-Sikar (Raj), placed on record by the Applicant, the Applicant is shown to be the wife of Late Rameshwar. However, the Applicant failed to answer as to why her name has been changed from "Parbati" to "Savitri Devi" from the former service rendered by Late Rameshwar in the Army to the second spell of service rendered in MH, Udaipur. Name of the wife of Late Rameshwar was recorded as "Parbati" in his service documents of service rendered in the Army based on the statement given by the Late Rameshwar at the time of his enrolment. Name of the wife of Late Rameshwar should have been recorded as "Smt Parbati" based on the documents produced by him at the time of his re-employment in MH, Udaipur, however, as per the PPO produced by the Applicant on record, the name of wife of Late Rameshwar is recorded as "Smt Savitri Devi". If there was a change in the name of the wife of Late Rameshwar in the service record in MH, Udaipur, it should have been changed on the basis of some authority as without any authority, the name of wife as was mentioned in the former service rendered in the Army as Barber cannot be changed. However, the Applicant has placed nothing on record on this count. The Applicant has failed to establish herself as the legally wedded wife of Late Rameshwar, during the tenure of the deceased soldier in the Army in Barber trade where her name was not recorded as his wife. Moreover, during his lifetime, Late Ramershwar Lal made no efforts to get the Service Pension for the former service rendered in the Army as NCE. Further, the OA has been filed after more than 54 years of discharge of Late Rameshwar and 24 years after his death.


सत्यमेव जयते

7. The citations relied upon by the Applicant in the case of Shri Bhawani Dutt Notyal is distinguishable as in the present case, the Applicant (so-widow of Late Rameshwar) is in receipt of Family Pension for the second spell of service rendered in MH, Udaipur, whereas in the case of Bhawani Dutt Notyal (Supra), the NCE was not in receipt of any type of pension. Moreover, in the case of Bhawani Dutt Notyal, he was enrolled in 1975, by which time the pensionable service for NCsE had been reduced to 15 years, i.e., wef 1973. On the other hand, the husband of the Applicant herein was enrolled and discharged prior to the revised rules making pensionable service of NCsE to 15 years.

8. In view of the above facts, the Applicant has no locus standi to claim Family Pension as she was not recorded in the service documents maintained by the Army for the service rendered in the Army. Further, the OA has been filed after 54 years of discharge of Late Rameshwar and 24 years after his death, we are not inclined to entertain the prayer made by the Applicant for grant of Family Pension.

9. The OA is devoid of merit on all counts and, hence, is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

10. No order on costs.

Sd/XXX

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

Ssy/-

Sd/-XXX

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)