Armed Forces Tribunal
Smt Dariya Kanwar wdo Late Hav Khet Singh (Army) vs UOI & Others on 26 February 2026
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR
27.
OA No 403/022 with MA No 559/2022
Smt Dariya Kanwar, Wd/o No-2865280A Late Hav Khet Singh, R/o VPO-Sagarna, Tehsil-Devikot, Distt-Jaisalmer(Raj)
….Applicant
Versus
1.
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, Govt of India, New Delhi - 110011
2.
The PCDA (P), Allahabad (UP) – 211014
3.
The Officer-in-Charge Records, Records The RAJ RIF
PIN-900106, C/o 56 APO
…. Respondents
For Applicant
: Ms. Sunita Sinwar, Advocate
For Respondents
: Mr.Brij Bihari Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
26.02.2026
1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for directing the Respondents to grant Special Family Pension to the Applicant from the date of death of her husband instead of Ordinary Family Pension 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 husband was enrolled in the Army on 17.08.1971 and died on 11.09.1982 due to Myocardial Infraction during Battle Physical Efficiency Training (BPET) conducted by his unit. The Competent Medical Authority as well as the duly constituted Court of Inquiry considered the death of her husband as Attributable to Military Service. However, MA (P) at PCDA (P) re-considered the death of her husband as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA) and granted Ordinary Family Pension instead of Special Family Pension. The Applicant submits that her husband died during performance of bonafide military duty and his death was considered as Attributable to Military Service by the Competent Medical Authority, therefore, she is entitled for grant of Special Family Pension from the date of death of her husband. In support of her claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on catena of judgments/orders passed by Hon’ble High Courts and Armed Forces Tribunals. The representation for grant of Special Family Pension made by the Applicant was rejected by the Respondents vide impugned Order dt 10.05.2022. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.
5. The Respondents filed a detailed reply to the Application and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, they have submitted that the death of the Applicant’s husband was considered as Attributable to Military Service by the Competent Medical Authority as well as the duly constituted Court of Inquiry. However, based on the recommendation of Medical Advisor (Pension) (Annexure R/9), the claim for grant of Special Family Pension was rejected by PCDA (P). In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
6. We have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed before us. Now the question arises, as to whether MA (P) at PCDA (P) can overrule the opinion of Medical boards.
7. It is not in dispute that the Applicant’s husband died while running in BPET conducted by his unit and at the time of his death, he was on bonafide military duty. Perusal of the Attributability Certificate (Annexure R/2) and Court of Inquiry (Annexure R/3) reveals that the death of the Applicant’s husband was considered as Attributable to Military Service. However, Special Family Pension claim was rejected by PCDA (P) based on the recommendations of MA (P) at PCDA (P) (Annexure R/9).
8. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the death of the Applicant’s husband was considered as Attributable to Military Service by the duly constituted Court of Inquiry and as per the Attributability Certificate placed at Annexure R/2 and also the fact that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others Vs. AV Damodaran (dead) through LRs &Ors, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 140 has held that opinion of medical experts have to be given due value, weight and credence and the MA (P) at PCDA (P) has overturned the opinion of the Attributability Certificate issued by the Competent Medical Authority, we direct the Respondents to reconsider the case of the Applicant for grant of Special Family Pension after ascertaining the factual position within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The outcome therefore, shall be intimated to the Applicant. It is further directed that since OA has been filed after a hiatus of 39 years from the date of death of the Applicant’s husband, if it is decided to sanction Special Family Pension to the Applicant, the arrears of Special Family Pension would be authorized wef 3 years prior to the date of filing the OA, ie., 28.09.2022.
9. The OA is disposed off, accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.
10. No order on costs.
(SANJIV MITTAL)
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)
MEMBER (J)
Ssy/-