Armed Forces Tribunal
Smt Maya Kaur wdo Late Swr Hoshiyar Singh vs UOI & Others on 16 December 2025
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR
30.
OA No 263/2023 with MA No 411/2023
Smt Maya Kaur, Wd/o No-1043560 Late Ex Swr Hoshiyar Singh, R/o Vill-Urika, Post-Mahipalwas, Tehsil-Buhana, District-Jhunjhunu (Raj) – 333033
…. Applicant
Versus
1.
Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi
2.
Addl. Dte Gen of Personnel Services, AG’s Branch IHQ of MoD (Army), DHQ PO, New Delhi - 110011
3.
OIC Records, Armoured Group Records
Ahmednagar - 414001
4.
PCDA (Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad (UP)
…. Respondents
For Applicant
: None present
For Respondents
: Mr Gajendra 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
1
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
16.12.2025
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, ie., 03.12.1971 and that the arrears be paid along with interest @ 10% per annum and pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for harassment and mental torture to the Applicant for non-grant of Special Family Pension.
2. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the Applicant are that the Applicant’s husband was enrolled in the Army on 15.01.1969. While travelling by train on 02.12.1971, her husband unfortunately met with a train accident at Bandikui and got multiple injuries. He was shifted to MH, Alwar and during treatment at MH, Alwar, he succumbed to injuries on 03.12.1971. The Applicant has been granted Ordinary Family Pension instead of Special Family Pension. The Appeal against rejection of Special Family Pension preferred by the Applicant was rejected by the Competent Authority vide letter dt 12.08.1977 on the grounds that the death of the deceased soldier was considered as Not Attributable to Military Service. The Applicant has placed reliance on AFT (RB) Lucknow Orders dt 13.07.2016 in OA No 203/2015 in the case of Mrs Poonam Tomar Vs UOI & Ors and AFT (RB) Chandigarh Order dt 05.12.2017 in OA No 957/2015 in the case of Smt Savita Vs UOI & Ors and submitted that her husband died while travelling in train and died at MH, Alwar during treatment, therefore, the Applicant is eligible for grant of Special Family Pension in terms of Rule 213 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). The Applicant issued Legal Notice for grant of Special Family Pension but the same was rejected vide impugned Order dt 01.02.2021. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed present OA.
3. The Respondents have filed a detailed reply to the Application. While not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have raised preliminary objections on the grounds that the Applicant has made false statement in Para 7 of the OA that she has not filed any case before any Court for the same relief. Earlier, the Applicant had filed SB Civil Writ Petition No 14182/2006 before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for the same relief which was subsequently transferred to Hon’ble AFT (PB), New Delhi and the same was dismissed vide AFT (PB), New Delhi Order dt 25.01.2010. The said Order was not challenged by the Applicant before Hon’ble Supreme Court/High Court. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the OA is governed by the principles of Res-judicata and, hence, deserves to be dismissed.
4. We have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed before us.
5. On the issue of Res-judicata, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheodan Kunwar, (1966) 3 SCR 300 held as under:- “A plain reading of Section 11 shows that to constitute a matter res judicata, the following conditions must be satisfied, namely—
(i) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit;
(ii) The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim;
(iii) The parties must have litigated under the same title in the former suit;
(iv) The court which decided the former suit must be a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised; and
(v) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit.”
6. In the present case, the Applicant had filed WP (C) No 14182/2006 before Hon’ble Delhi High Court for the same relief. On constitution of Armed Forces Tribunal, the Writ Petition was transferred to AFT (PB), New Delhi and was registered as TA No 266/2010. The same was dismissed vide AFT (PB), New Delhi Order 25.01.2010 and the Order has not been challenged by the Applicant before the Competent Court of Law. Therefore, the OA is governed by the principles of Res-judicata and, hence, is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.
7. No order on costs.
(SANJIV MITTAL)
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)
MEMBER (J)
Ssy/-