Smt Gita alias Giya wdo Late Spr Brahma Lal Meena vs UOI & Others on 29 August 2025

**ORDER**

**29/08/2025**

1. 1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to grant Special Family Pension for life instead of Ordinary Family Pension granted to her wef 05/9/1990.

2. 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 10/9/1986. He was presumed dead on 04/9/1990 at about 0920 hours due to an accidental drowning while he was attempting to cross the River Indus near the village Hemis in Jammu and Kashmir. The applicant 

has been granted Ordinary Family Pension. Whereas, as per the Certificate issued by the Record Office about the particulars of a deceased soldier, death of the husband of the applicant was recorded as Attributable to military service. Therefore, rejection of Special Family Pension by the Respondents is illegal, arbitrary and against the Rule 213, 310 and 332 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, as he died while he was on bona fide military duty in High Altitude Area at Leh, Jammu and Kashmir under Operation, 'Rakshak'. In support of her arguments, the counsel for the applicant has quoted in Verbatim the provisions contained in Pension Regulations for the Army Part II, for grant of Special Family Pension - pensionary benefits on death/disability in attributable/aggravated cases. However, despite her all out efforts, including serving a Legal Notice on the Respondents, it has borne no fruit. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief.

3. Respondents have filed a Reply Statement. While conceding the basic facts, they have submitted that as per the detailed report initiated by 62 Engineer Regiment - the Parent Unit of the husband of the applicant - vide their letter dated 04/9/1990, husband of the applicant was declared Absent Without Leave (AWL) from his Company Area by the Unit. Thereafter, a search party was sent to trace him. At about 0920 hours, while the search party was proceeding towards Karu, it noticed the husband of the applicant walking on road towards Karu and on sighting this team, he jumped into the River Indus. Although the search party tried to rescue him, but it could not succeed in its mission due to heavy current of water. Husband of the applicant drowned in front of the search party. His body was retrieved from the River Indus on 25/9/1990 and the autopsy was carried out on 26/9/1990. Claim for grant of special family pension to the applicant was processed to PCDA (P), but same was rejected and instead, the applicant was granted Ordinary Family Pension, treating the death of husband of the applicant as neither attributable to nor aggravated by service as he died due to drowning. The same was intimated to the applicant with an advice to file an Appeal, if so desired, within the stipulated time of six months. However, after a gap of 33 years, the Applicant has submitted an application for grant of special Family Pension, which was suitably replied to by the Record Office. With regard to the MA filed by the applicant for condonation of delay involved in filing the OA, the Respondents have stated that the instant OA which was filed after a delay of 35 years without any justifiable reasons for the delay is barred by limitation and, hence, the applicant has no right to agitate the cause of action after such a huge delay. In view of the narration herein, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA.

4. We have heard the Counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. Perusal of record reveals that the husband of the applicant was enrolled in the Bombay Engineer Group on 10/9/1986. As per copy of Annexure R/1, husband of the applicant, while serving with 62 Engineer Regiment at Leh, Jammu and Kashmir (now Union Territory of Ladakh), was found absent without leave from the Unit lines on 04/9/1990 at 0730 hours. At about 0920 hours, a search party led by two Havildars was detailed to trace him and the search party, while proceeding towards Karu noticed the husband of the applicant at two Kms short of Village Hemis, walking on the road leading to Karu. On seeing the search party, the husband of the applicant jumped into the River Indus, flowing along the road, in an apparent bid to escape the search party. Although the search party tried to rescue him, but it could not succeed in its mission owing to very high current of the water. Eventually, he drowned and presumed dead. His dead body was later recovered on 25/9/1990 and was cremated as per Hindu rites after obtaining necessary clearance from the civil police authorities and carrying out autopsy. The Court of Inquiry convened under the aegis of HQ 70 Inf Bde, that had gone into the circumstances under which the husband of the applicant died, and based on the direction issued by the GOC HQ 3 Inf Div, the death of husband of the applicant was considered as attributable to military service in High Altitude and Uncongenial Area and he had also cautioned the concerned Company of the late husband of the applicant about the need of psychological pressures of service in a high altitude environment and prophylactic measures essential to overcome the harsh service conditions in the specific area where the husband of the applicant was serving. Claim for grant of special family pension processed by the Record Office was rejected and instead the applicant was granted Ordinary Family Pension by the PCDA (P) on the ground that since the husband of the applicant died due to drowning, the death is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

6. The question on attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs when the individual was on duty/authorized leave of any kind, has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Government of India & Others Vs Dharambir Singh in Civil Appeal No 4981/2012 decided on 20.09.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under :- *"36. We find that summing up of the following guiding factors by the Tribunal in Jagtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors and approved in Sukhwant Singh and in Vijay Kumar do not warrant any change or modification and the claim of disability pension is required to be dealt with accordingly :-*

*(a) The mere fact of a person being on 'duty' or otherwise, at the place of posting or on leave, is not the sole criteria for deciding attributability of disability/death. There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and present in his unit. It should similarly apply when he is on leave; notwithstanding both being considered as 'duty'.*

*(b) If the injury suffered by the member of the Armed Force is the result of an act alien to the sphere of military service or in no way be connected to his being on duty as understood in the sense contemplated by Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules 1982, it would not be legislative intention or nor to our mind would be*


*permissible approach to generalise the statement that every injury suffered during such period of leave would necessarily be attributable".*

1. 7. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the death of husband of the Applicant had no causal connection with military service as he was found absent from the Unit lines and was declared 'Absent Without Leave' on the day of his drowning, thus making the applicant ineligible for grant of Special Family Pension. Therefore, the plea of the applicant for grant of Special Family Pension has no merit and is rejected as he was running away from his unit to avoid military duties assigned to him and of his own volition, he jumped into River Indus to avoid being caught by the search party.

2. 8. Apart from the above, we also find that the Application stands barred by inordinate delay and laches of more than 32 years with no cogent reason for the inexplicable delay and it does not deserve to be entertained. For this reason, the Application by the Applicant is totally misconceived. In view of the above and in the light of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining & Anr., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein it is held that a stale claim cannot be revived for grant of Pensionary benefits, the instant case cannot be entertained. The case is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Rajwanti, in Civil Appeal No 583-584 of 2017, decided on 16/1/2017.

3. 9. In fine, we are of the considered view that we find no merit in any of the pleas of the Applicant.

A small, rectangular, light-colored stamp or mark, possibly a signature or official seal, located at the bottom left of the page.

*OA 454/2023 with MA 739/2023 Smt Gita alias Giya, Wd/o Late Spr Brahma Lal Meena*

1. 10. The OA is dismissed. No order on Costs.

2. 11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

A faint, rectangular stamp or signature area, possibly containing a signature or official mark, located above the name of Sanjiv Mittal.

**(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)**

A faint, rectangular stamp or signature area, possibly containing a signature or official mark, located above the name of Goverdhan Bardhar.

**(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)**

*cda/-*