Armed Forces Tribunal
Smt Naini Devi wdo LAte Sub Bajarang Lal vs UOI & Others on 6 March 2026
**ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR**
14.
**OA No 156/2024 with MA No 246/2024**
Smt Naini Devi, Wd/o JC-491587H Late Sub Bajrang Lal, R/o VPO-Firod, Tehsil & Distt-Nagaur (Raj)- 341001
.... Applicant
Versus
1. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt of India, South Block, DHQ PO, New Delhi - 110011
2. The Additional Director General, Dir. Gen. of Manpower (Policy & Planning) MP5(D), AGS Branch, HQ of MoD
(Army), West Block-III, RK Putam, New Delhi-110066
3. The Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Prayagraj (UP) - 211014
4. The OIC Records, The Jat Regiment
PIN-900496, C/o 56 APO
.... Respondents
मन्त्रिपरिषद् राज्य
For Applicant : Mr Rameshwar Lal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pyare Lal, Advocate Proxy for Mr. OP Thajhia, 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
0
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.
ORDER
06.03.2026
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 Liberalised Family Pension to the Applicant wef 27.06.2022 along with Ex-Gratia Compensation as applicable to Battle Casualty and other consequential benefits for Battle Casualty and that the arrears be paid @ 12% per annum.
2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Late husband of the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 28.02.1995. While posted to 45 RR in "Op Rakshak" in J&K, her husband was leading an area Domination Patrol along the Line of Control (LoC) from East Ashwani to Point 3250 in the face of enemy to fight Counter Insurgency in High Altitude Area (HAA) at an altitude of 10725 Fd in Notified Area and due to difficult terrain, adverse climatic conditions and lack of oxygen in HAA, he suddenly collapsed and lost consciousness. Despite giving first aid, he died on 26.05.2022. His death was considered as Battle Casualty and, accordingly, Battle Casualty Certificate dt 25.11.2022 was issued by the Competent Authority. However, the PCDA (P) granted her Special Family Pension and Ex Gratia Compensation instead of Liberalised Family Pension. The Applicant has contended that her husband died in operational area along international border while performing bona fide military duty and his death was classified as "Battle Casualty" by the Competent Authority and, hence, the Applicant is entitled for grant of Liberalised Family Pension from the date of death of her husband and Ex Gratia Compensation as applicable to Battle Casualty cases. In support of her claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on catena of judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Courts and Armed Forces Tribunals. The Applicant made representation and also issued Legal Notice for grant of Liberalised Family Pension and Ex Gratia Compensation as applicable to Battle Casualty cases, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.
4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the Applicant is eligible for grant of Liberalised Family Pension and Ex Gratia Compensation. The case for grant of Liberalised Family Pension and Ex Gratia claim for a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- was processed through Sparsh on 27.05.2023, however, the same was rejected by PCDA (P). The PCDA (P) was again approached vide letter dt 05.10.2023, 27.02.2024 and 06.04.2024 for grant of above reliefs, but the PCDA (P) has not responded till date.
5. During the course of arguments, Proxy Counsel for the Respondents submitted that since the case is pending before PCDA (P), the PCDA (P), being the Pension Sanctioning Authority, may be directed to decide the case in a time bound period. Learned Counsel for the Applicant raised no objection, if the case is decided by the PCDA (P) in a time bound period.
6. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the Battle Casualty Certificate dt 25.11.2022 (Annexure A/4) has been issued by the Competent Authority, we direct PCDA (P) to decide the case as per extant rules/regulations/policies within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order, failing which the Applicant shall be entitled to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The outcome thereof shall be intimated to the Applicant.
7. The OA is disposed off accordingly. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.
8. No order on costs.
Sd/- XXX
Sd/- XXX
(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)
Ss/-
