Smt Kamaleshvar urf Kamlesh Kanwar wdo Late Gnr Hukam Singh Shekhawat (Army) vs UOI & Others on 17 July 2026

O R D E R

17.07.2026

1. Under Section 14 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying therein for directing the Respondents to quash and set aside dismissal order of the Applicant’s husband, treat her husband as ‘missing’ and grant her Special Family Pension and that the arrears of Special Family Pension and other consequential benefits be paid along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the husband of the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 12.02.1976 and was dismissed from Service on 26.04.1999 as a deserter. While in Service, the Applicant’s husband was tried by Summary Court Martial on 25.01.1988 for absenting without leave and awarded sentence of reduce to rank and undergo 100 days RI in military prison, which was not proportionate to the offence

committed by her husband. The Applicant was informed by her husband’s unit about desertion of her husband vide letter dt 14.09.2001. The Applicant has been granted AFPP Fund balance of her husband, however, other pensionary benefits have not been paid to her. Her husband was reported missing wef 19.11.1988 and has not been seen thereafter. Therefore, in terms of Section 108 of Evidence Act 1872, her husband should be presumed dead after 7 years of his disappearance and the Applicant be granted Special Family Pension. The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of in the case of DS Nakara Vs UOI, AIR 1983 SC 130 and submitted that her case for grant of Special Family Pension may be considered keeping in view the long service rendered by her husband in the Army. The Applicant made representations and also issued Legal Notice for grant of Special Family Pension after presuming her husband as dead after seven years of missing, but to no avail. Having been aggrieved by not getting the Special Family Pension, the applicant filed the present OA, praying for relief.

3. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement and have submitted that the Applicant’s husband was granted 15 days Casual Leave from 04.11.1988 to 18.11.1988. He failed to rejoin his duty on completion of Casual Leave. Accordingly, an Apprehension Roll was issued and despite all out efforts made, neither the Applicant rejoined his duties nor was apprehended by Civil Police. Therefore, after 30 days of his absence, he was declared as a Deserter wef 19.11.1988 by a duly constituted Court of Inquiry in accordance with Section 106 of Army Act, 1950 and after ten years of his desertion from Field, he was dismissed from Service under Section 20(b) of Army Act, 1950 read in conjunction with Rule 17 of Army Rules, 1954. Thereafter, the Applicant sent a petition dt 31.08.2001 for grant of Family Pension as whereabouts of her husband were not known and was missing since 1988. The Applicant was issued with Discharge Book in respect of her husband and was informed about non-entitlement for Family Pension vide letter dt 14.09.2001. Thereafter, the Applicant’s husband, Gnr Hukam Singh Shekhawat wrote a letter to Artillery Records on 30.11.2015 stating that he had come back to his home on

10.01.2004 and living with his family and requested to intimate whether he was entitled for pensionary benefits. He was duly informed about his non- entitlement of pensionary benefits vide letter dt 26.12.2015 as he had been dismissed. In terms of Para 113 (a) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1) read in conjunction with Rule 41 (a) of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1), an individual who is dismissed from service under the provisions of Army Act, 1950 is not eligible for grant of pension or gratuity in respect of all previous service rendered by him. Since, the Applicant’s husband, being a Field deserter, was dismissed from Service under the provisions of Army Act, 1950, he was not entitled for grant of Service Pension and, consequently, the Applicant is also not eligible for grant of Family Pension in terms of Rule 212 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1), read in conjunction with Rule 63 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1).

4. We have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. Perusal of records reveals that the Applicant’s husband was dismissed from Service on 26.04.1999 as a Deserter. On 30.11.2015, the Applicant’s husband himself wrote a letter to Artillery Records with heading “Reporting from Missing”, wherein he submitted that he was dismissed from Service on 26.04.1999 as a deserter. He further stated that he served in a private company but due to his psychological issues, he left his job in the private Company. Thereafter, he reported to his home on 10.01.2004 and living with his family in good condition since then. In this letter he also enquired about his pensionary entitlements and provisions for financial assistance, if he was not entitled for pensionary benefits. This letter clearly shows that the Applicant’s husband is not missing and has been with his family since 10.01.2004. Hence, the OA filed by the Applicant in the year 2023 is full of lies and false statements.

6. During the hearing, the Counsel for the Applicant was asked about entitlements for grant of Family Pension to the Applicant in view of the statement in the OA that her husband was missing since January 1988 and

should be treated as ‘presumed dead’, while her husband was very much alive and the Applicant was living with her husband, the Counsel for the Applicant submitted that since her husband has died, the Applicant has filed present OA for grant of Family Pension. Strangely, the Applicant has prayed for grant of Special Family Pension based on the presumption that her husband was dead in terms of Evidence Act, 1972 and neither made any mention about death of her husband nor placed death certificate on record. On getting to know that the facts stated in the OA were a bundle of lies and the husband of the Applicant was not missing since January 1988, Counsel for the Applicant prayed for withdrawal of OA with liberty to file afresh.

7. It is a classic case of misrepresentation on behalf of the Applicant to mislead the Court to get undue pecuniary and pensionary benefits on the pretext of treating her husband as missing though he was dismissed from service being a deserter for over ten years and fully knowing that she was not entitled to any pensionary benefits. The OA is a vexatious litigation and the Applicant is liable to be punished for perjury for trying to mislead the Court and making false statements on Oath to get undue pecuniary benefits. However, we are restraining ourselves not to impose any cost and punish the Applicant who is the wife of a soldier. The OA is dismissed as withdrawn. The Applicant is granted liberty to file afresh, if so desired.

8. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-