Smt Nisha Sharma wdo Late Nb Sub Naresh Kumar Sharma vs UOI & Others on 29 August 2025

O R D E R

29.08.2025

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed to quash/ set-aside impugned order dt 04.09.2024 and direct the Respondents for restoration of full Special Family Pension to the Applicant and pay full AGIF benefits as per the declarations made in Part-II Order dt 28.03.2012 and pay the cost of litigations.

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 06.10.2008. The Applicant married to Late Nb Sub Naresh Kumar Sharma on 06.05.2011 as per Hindu rites and out of the wedlock the couple has been blessed with two children, namely, Miss Khushi Sharma and Master Mayank Sharma. The Applicant submits that she is the legally wedded wife of her late husband and she was nominated as sole legal heir/nominee and Next of Kin to get all pensionary and AGI benefits vide Part II Order No 0/001/2012 dt 28.03.2012. While in service, her husband died on 11.03.2021 in a Road Traffic Accident. The death of her husband was considered as Attributable to Military Service for which the Applicant was granted Special Family Pension till widowhood wef 12.03.2011. Based on the factually incorrect report dt 23.03.2023 submitted by Army Recruiting Officer, Jhunjhunu, the Army authorities unilaterally and arbitrarily divided the Family Pension of the Applicant with her mother-in-law at the ratio of 50:50 vide Corr PPO dt 05.07.2024 (Annexure A/3) and the Basic Family Pension reduced from Rs. 35,400/- pm to Rs. 17,700/- pm wef 01.06.2024. The Applicant made representation before the Chief of the Army Staff on 05.08.2024 for revocation of Order for division of Special Family Pension and Restoration of full Special Family Pension but the same was rejected vide impugned Order No Pen Gp/JC806351M/SFP dt 04.09.2024 (Annexure A/1). The Applicant submits that being the sole nominee of her husband, she is fully entitled for Special Family Pension in terms of Para 216 and 218 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part- 1). The Applicant submits that the report for division of family pension was based on the factually incorrect details and the financial position of her mother-in-law was misrepresented and concealed with a view to mislead the authorities to arrive at the conclusion for division of Special Family Pension at the ratio of 50:50. As per the investigation report, Mr Suresh Kumar, brother of her deceased husband was shown as unemployed, but the fact is that he is BA, BEd qualified, works as Religious Pandit/Pujari and a Hindu Temple Priest who forms regular Puja in three temples and also performs private religious ceremonies, rituals from which he earns a respectable income to support his family. Further, her mother-in-law also owns 14 Bighas of arable land and exclusively enjoys agriculture produce of both the Kharif and Rabi Crops. In addition, she also gets 45 kg Ration (wheat) every month through Public Distribution Scheme, which is more than sufficient for her livelihood. Apart from that, she is exempted to pay electricity charges up to consumption of 100 units of electricity and getting LPG Cylinder at subsidized rate of Rs. 450/- per Cylinder. Her mother-in-law also got Rs. 10 lakhs from AGIF which is enough for her livelihood because she is getting monthly interest on the fixed deposit of Rs. 10 lakh and she has no liability and responsibilities. In the Report dt 23.03.2023 submitted by ARO, Jhunjhunu it is mentioned that the Applicant is employed as ANM in Mehada but the fact is that she was employed for a short duration of 6-7 months only on contractual basis during the period of COVID-19 @ Rs. 7900/- pm and after 6-7 months, she has been terminated from Service on completion of the contractual period and presently she is not employed anywhere and finding it difficult to manage her family with meagre amount of the Family Pension as she also has to pay monthly rent to the house owner. The Applicant submits that she has the onerous responsibility for upbringing and education of her two minor school going children aged 10 years and 8 years. Further, her husband had constructed a house from the savings of his service in the Army valued approximately Rs. 20 lakhs, but after his death, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Shri Suresh Kumar) evicted her from the house and she has been forced to live in a rented house. She has also the responsibility to construct a house for her children so that they can live a decent life. In support of her claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on AFT (PB), New Delhi Order dt 08.12.2017 in OA No 322/2013 in the case of Smt Sunita Devi Vs UOI & Ors and Hon’ble

Supreme Court judgment dt 28.09.2016 in Civil Appeal No 9823/2016 [arising out of SLP (C) Mo 21187/2015] in the case of Nitu Vs Sheela Rani & Ors and reiterated that the Applicant, being the legally wedded wife of her husband, is entitled for full Special Family Pension. In view of the aforesaid, the Applicant submitted that her Special Family Pension should be fully restored to her.

3. The Respondents (R1-6) have filed a detailed Reply Statement and while not disputing the basic facts submitted by the Applicant, they have submitted that based on the representation of Smt Vinod Devi (mother-in-law of the Applicant) for grant of Family Pension highlighting the fact that she was fully dependent on her deceased son and her husband is also missing since long time and her younger son is unemployed and the Applicant has left her matrimonial house and living separately, in terms of Rule 130 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1), HQ Recruiting Zone, Jaipur was requested to investigate the matter that whether the Applicant, Smt Nisha Sharma was contributing proportionately towards the support of other eligible heirs in the family and whether Smt Vinod Devi (mother-in-law of the Applicant) was wholly dependent on the deceased soldier. Based on the investigation Report by Tehsildar, Udaipurwati (Rajasthan), ARO Jhunjhunu submitted its report on 23.03.2023 wherein it was mentioned that the Widow of the deceased soldier was living separately with her children in a rental house and serving as ANM and the parents of the deceased soldier were fully dependent on him and they have no other source of income and their economic condition is very poor. Therefore, based on the report submitted by ARO, Jhunjhunu and in terms of Rule 130 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1), OIC Records sanctioned division of Special Family Pension in the ratio of 50:50 between the Widow and Mother of the deceased soldier and, accordingly, PCDA (Sparsh) notified e-PPO No 193202100116 dt 05.07.2024. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Respondents (R1-6) have reiterated that the division of Special Family Pension has been carried out considering the financial status of the mother of the deceased soldier as submitted through the on ground investigation carried out by the concerned competent authority and in terms of extant policies on the subject. The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent (R-7) has filed a detailed Reply statement and while not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, it has been submitted that after death of Late Nb Sub Naresh Kumar, the Applicant (Smt Nisha Sharma) left her matrimonial house and residing in a rental accommodation and was not contributing to support her. Based on her representation, the Inquiry report submitted by the Competent Authority revealed that the mother of the deceased soldier had no source of income and her husband was missing since long. One another younger son was also unemployed and her financial condition was very weak with no source of income, the Competent Authority granted 50% share of Special Family Pension so that the mother of the deceased soldier could live a dignified life. As regards income from the arable land, the Applicant submitted that she has share of 11/16 part of 1.53 hectare of rain fed land and further being old aged, she is unable to do farming herself and engaging labours proves it economically unviable and at times resulting in a financial loss also. Further, she is surviving on minimal government support, ie., 45 kg free ration and subsidized electricity and gas cylinders without any additional income, except the share of Special Family Pension. The Applicant was bound to look after her mother-in-law but she left her alone and did not contribute proportionately towards her and left her in penury. Further, the Applicant also got approximately 90 lakhs of rupees as death benefits from various welfare schemes and also getting monthly Special Family Pension and is presently employed as ANM which proves that she is financially well off. In view of the aforesaid averments, she has submitted that based on the factual report submitted by the Competent Authority, she has rightly been granted 50% share in Special Family Pension so that she can also live a dignified life. The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents (R-8) has also filed a detailed report and submitted that 75% share of insurance benefit amounting to Rs.

30 Lakh was considered in favour of widow (Applicant in the OA), including the share of two minor children as there were four Class I legal heirs, ie., Widow, Mother and two children of the deceased soldier. 25% share amounting to Rs. 10 Lakh has been paid to the widow and 25% share each of two children amounting to Rs. 10 lakh each has been invested in the Social Security Deposit (SSD) Scheme in the name of daughter Khushi Sharma and son Mayank Sharma as non-cumulative deposit till they attain the age of majority. Balance 25% share of death benefits amounting to Rs. 10 lakh has been paid to Smt Vinod Devi (mother of the deceased soldier). Maturity benefits amounting to Rs. 4,46,528/- has been paid to the Applicant on 17.02.2022. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondent (R-8) has submitted that the OA is not maintainable against them as the WILL referred to is only for Army benefits and not for AGI insurance benefits. They have already discharged their liabilities by paying 100% insurance benefits to all the class I legal heirs as per law and nothing is pending with AGIF. If the Applicant wants to obtain 25% share of insurance benefits from her mother- in-law, she can obtain directly from the mother of the deceased through court of law at their end. Learned Counsel for the Applicant raised no objection on the statements of Learned Counsel for the Respondents (R8) and does not press for payment of full AGI benefits as declared in Part II Orders.

6. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the Applicant placed on record written arguments. He also placed on record IHQ of MoD (Army) letter No B/38041/Misc/AG/PS-7 dt 12.06.2024 and submitted that in the case of Mr Achal Singh and Anita Devi (parents) and Mrs Sunita Dahiya (widow) of late Maj Satish Dahiya, the Competent Authority approved division of Liberalised Family Pension between the parents and widow at the ratio of 30:70 despite being the fact that in that case the widow was childless with no further liabilities but in the present case, the widow Applicant has the onerous responsibility of bringing two school going children and she has to construct a house for her children and, hence, reiterated that her Special Family Pension has to be fully restored. Still, Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that keeping in view the instructions of the Applicant herself, out of compassion and sympathy towards her aged mother-in-law, the Applicant has no objection if this Hon’ble Tribunal is pleased to order division of Special Family Pension in the proportionate ratio of 85:15 between the Widow and the Mother of the deceased soldier instead of the impugned division of 50:50 ratio.

7. After going through the averments of the Learned Counsels and the material available on record, the following facts germane to the issue pertaining to the late husband of the applicant emerge:- (a) The husband of the Applicant was enrolled in the Army on 06.10.2008. He married the Applicant on 06.05.2011 and blessed with two children (one daughter and one son) out of the wedlock. Part II Order for the marriage was published and the Applicant was notified as Next of Kin for all pensionary and AGIF benefits.

(b) The Applicant’s husband died on 11.03.2021 in a Road Traffic Accident while on duty. His death was considered as Attributable to Military Service and, accordingly, the Applicant was granted Special Family Pension wef 12.03.2021 till widowhood.

(c) Based on a representation from mother-in-law of the Applicant that the Applicant had left her matrimonial house and residing with her children in a rented accommodation and was not maintaining her mother-in-law, an investigation was carried by ARO, Jhunjhunu and submitted its report on 23.03.2023 (Annexure A/8).

(d) As per investigation report, the father of the deceased soldier was missing for a long time and the mother of the deceased soldier was living with her younger son, Shri Suresh Kumar, who was unemployed and the mother of the deceased soldier had no source of income.

(e) It is also not in dispute that the mother of the deceased soldier is also getting 45 kg ration, electricity and gas cylinders on subsidized rates from the Government. She has also got Rs 10 lakhs from AGI. The mother of the deceased soldier has also not disputed the fact presented by the Applicant that the deceased soldier had constructed the house out of the savings from the salary costing to approximately 20 lakhs and the mother of the deceased soldier along with his younger brother is living in that house.

(f) Mr Suresh Kumar, brother-in-law of the Applicant is BA, BEd qualified and is not dependent on his parents and being a “Pandit”, performs rituals and has sufficient income for his survival. Further, he is also residing with his mother in the parental house.

(g) The Applicant, widow of the deceased soldier is living in a rented accommodation and paying Rs. 5000/- pm as rent out of the Special Family Pension granted to her and both the children are studying in private school. She does not have any ancestral property on which she can built a house, whereas the mother-in-law of the Applicant is residing in a house constructed by the deceased husband of the Applicant and has no liability towards payment of rentals, etc.

(h) Though the Applicant was employed as ANM for short duration of 6-7 months only during COVID-19, presently she is unemployed. She has onerous responsibility to build her own house after purchase of plot, as she does not have any ancestral property/land and also have the responsibility of upbringing two children including one daughter.

8. The moot point to be determined in this matter is whether the Applicant is eligible for restoration of full Special Family Pension?

9. On the issue of Division of Special Family Pension, Rule 130 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-1) reads as under:-

“DIVISION OF SPECIAL FAMILY PENSION

30. (a) If the recipient of special family pension refuses to contribute proportionately towards the support of other eligible heirs in the family who were dependent on the deceased, or if the pension is in the name of the child but not devoted to the interest of the family generally, the competent authority may, on the basis of verification/investigation report rendered by the Zila Sainik Board/Recruiting Organization and supported by the statement of any one of the under mentioned Local Civil Authorities, divide at his discretion, the special family pension among the eligible heirs of the deceased:

(i) Sarpanch of a Village;

(ii) Any serving or retired Gazetted Officer, Civil or Military, including a Junior Commissioned Officer;

(iii) Sub Post Master;

(iv) Qanungo or Patwari/Lekhpal;

(v) Sub-Inspector of Police;

(vi) A Member of Municipal Corporation or Committee or a Zila Parishad/ District Board;

(vi) Panchayat President/Village Munsif/ Patel/ Village Officer/Panchayat Executive Officer.

(viii) Member of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Vidhan Sabha or Vidhan Parishad;

(ix) Oath Commissioner/Notary Public.

Notes:

1. The competent authority may order similar division of special family pension at the time of initial grant, if at the time of initial investigation of a claim, it is found that the nominated heir is not living a communal life with other eligible heirs, or he is not willing to contribute proportionately towards his support.

2. In the event of a division of special family pension, the widow’s share shall not be less than the normal rate of ordinary family pension that would have been admissible to her had the death not been held as attributable to service.

(b) The division of special family pension as per clause (a) above, shall hold good only for the period during which the pension is payable to the original recipient under the Regulation governing its grant. If during this period one of the parties to the division (other than the original recipient) is disqualified or dies, his or her share shall be restored to the original recipient, if he or she is the only one living, or shall be divided among the remaining recipients, if there are more than one.”

10. In the present case, the widow Applicant is living in a rented accommodation along with her school going children and paying a sum of Rs. 5000/- pm to the house owner in addition to payment of school fee and other responsibilities of upbringing the children, including a female child. She does not have any ancestral property/ land on her name on which she can built a house for herself and she has to purchase a plot, if she wants to construct a house for herself for which a huge amount of money is required. It is not in dispute that the Applicant has the responsibility to look after the parents of her deceased husband but the Applicant states that she wants to look after and maintain her mother-in-law but she has been forcibly evicted from the house constructed by her husband and is forced to live separately in a rented house with no source of income except the meagre amount of Special Family Pension, that too 50% only presently. It cannot be ignored that being a widow and no one available to look after her two small children, she chose to work as health worker during the COVID period, which reflects her pressing demands to maintain herself and her two small children. On the other hand, the mother-in-law of the Applicant owns arable land and is also residing with her younger son, Shri Suresh Kumar in the house constructed by the Applicant’s husband and she has no other financial liabilities. The fact that the house was constructed by the Applicant’s husband is well corroborated with the facts that the father of the deceased soldier has been missing since long and with no source of income, the house could not have been constructed by her mother-in-law and the unemployed brother-in-law of the Applicant. Further, the mother-in-law of the Applicant is also getting 45 kg subsidized ration from public distribution system, 100 units of free electricity and gas cylinder on subsidized rates and the ration provided through the public distribution system which is sufficient for her livelihood, apart from the fact that she is having income from the arable land and monthly interest from the fixed amount of Rs. 10 lakh received from AGIF. Further, she is also staying with her younger son and, hence, it cannot be said that the mother- in-law of the Applicant is solely dependent on the monthly pension of the deceased husband of the Applicant. Mr Suresh Kumar, the brother-in-law of the Applicant, also performs rituals and earns a respectable amount and is also looking after his old aged mother. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the Respondents did not take into account the respective financial and other liabilities of the Applicant and the mother-in-law of the Applicant presently before ordering division of Special Family Pension granted in favour of the Applicant at the ratio 50:50 and the same needs to be rectified.

11. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the Applicant is residing in a rented accommodation and have onerous responsibilities of upbringing two small school going children and construction of house after purchase of a plot and also the fact that the Applicant has also expressed her desire for sharing of Family Pension with her old aged mother-in-law at the ratio 85:15 out of compassion, we consider the division of Special Family Pension between the Widow and the Mother of the deceased soldier at the ratio 75:25 wef the date of this Order. We direct that the Respondents shall issue Corrigendum PPO within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

12. The OA is ordered, accordingly. Miscellaneous Application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed off.

13. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-

14. After pronouncement of Order, Learned Counsel for the Respondents (R-7) made an oral prayer for granting Leave to Appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As we do not find any point of law of general public importance involved to grant Leave to Appeal, the oral prayer is rejected.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-