WP/40118/2025 of G.KAMATSHI Vs UNION OF INDIA on 9 October 2026

Order

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the order passed by the Army Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai dated 28.08.2025 passed in O.A.No.94 of 2024.

2. Ex-Sepoy Late D.Govindaraj (S.No.225994) was enrolled in the army on 01.02.1995. While serving with 226 Field Regiment he was granted annual leave of 60 days from 16.04.2014 to 14.06.2014. On 17.04.2014, he was found dead in Train No.12970, Jaipur to Coimbatore Express at Chennai Central Railway Station. The deceased army personnel nominated his wife Mrs.G.Kamatshi / writ petitioner herein as NoK and all admissible terminal benefits were released and disbursed to the writ petitioner. Pertinently, the claim for special family pension processed through Artillery Records (3rd respondent) was returned by PCDA (P), Prayagraj vide their letter dated 17.09.2014 stated that, “in the instant case, the above named individual died due to pulmonary tuberculosis which is a disease. Hence, bing a disease case, medical opinion of DGAFMS regarding attributability of death due to Military service is required hereby for further necessary action at this end.”

3. The third respondent / officer-in-charge Artillery Records processed the case and the DGAFMS vide letter dated 13.11.2014 opined that, “perusal of the documents show that the individual, an old case of Immune Surveillance on ART, died en route while travelling from unit to home town in the train. Postmortem examination declared the cause of death as Pulmonary Tuberculosis and ruled out foul play. Pulmonary Tuberculosis developing in an established known case of HIV positivity on a later date is considered as part of the AID complex and is not attributable to military service in terms of Para 1 of Chapter VI of GMO 2002, amendment 2008”.

4. Considering the medical opinion, PCDA(P) granted ordinary family pension to the writ petitioner on 26.03.2015. The above facts were communicated to the writ petitioner vide the Artillery Records Letter dated 04.12.2014 with an advice to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Committee on

First Appeals against rejection of Special Family Pension within six months if she desires, but she did not appeal. After a lapse of about 10 years, the writ petitioner moved the Arms Tribunal by way of an Original Application claiming Special Family Pension. The Tribunal rejected the claim. Thus, the application preferred the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner Mr.A.Q.Choudhury would mainly contend that delay cannot be attributed in cases of family pension. It is a continuing cause of action and thus the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application on the ground of delay. Secondly he would contend that, the deceased Army Officer Mr.Govindaraj died while in service, which is not disputed, rather admitted by the respondents. While so, the findings of the Medical Board that he developed Pulmonary Tuberculosis which is the cause for death is to be interpreted in favour of the writ petitioner for grant of Special Family Pension. The benefit of doubt in such circumstances regarding the cause of death must be granted in favour of the Family Pensioner and in this regard, he would rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others (vs) Col.NC.Isaac (Retd) reported in 2026 INSC 993. He relied on the concluding paragraph – Para 30.7 in the judgment, which reads as under:

30.7 Conclusion: The mere addition of a causal requirement and a removal of the presumption that when a member joins service healthy, and, if, he leaves with a disability, it ought to be attributable to the military service, does not, by itself, change the core scheme of the Entitlement Rules 2008 because the other beneficial provisions broadly remain untouched. The onus to prove that the member’s disability is not attributable to service still lies on the employer. The relevant rules regarding attributability and aggravation continue to hold that if cause of disability is unknown, and presumption of attributability is not rebutted, then the disability is attributable to service. Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules 2008 read with Rule 423 of the RMSAF, 2010 continue to generate a reasonable benefit of doubt in favour of the service member.”

6. Relying on the above judgment, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would further contend that pension is a right and in the present case, ordinary family pension alone has been granted. The death of the Army Personnel occurred in service and the nature of the disease which was the cause of death is attributable to his service since in the present case the deceased army personnel was posted in difficult areas like Leh Glazier, Ladakh and other difficult areas. The personnel working in such areas are developing diseases of such nature and therefore, the said benefit of doubt is to be extended in favour of the writ petitioner.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that the case of the writ petitioner was considered based on the Rules applicable for grant of Special Family Pension. The claim of the writ petitioner was rejected by the Department in the year 2014 and opportunity was granted to her to prefer an appeal within a period of six months, but she had not exhausted the appeal remedy. However, the petitioner approached the Army Forces Tribunal after a lapse of 10 years and therefore the Tribunal has considered the delay and held against the writ petitioner.

8. Regarding the claim for grant of Special Family Pension the learned Standing Counsel would rely on Pension Regulations for Army 2008, which shall apply to the facts of the present case. He drew the attention of this Court with reference to Para 1 of Chapter VI of GMO, 2002 (Amendment 2008). Relying on the said Rule position and conditions regarding eligibility for grant of Special Family Pension, the respondents would contend that it was elaborately considered by the Army Forces Tribunal and thus, the present writ petition is to be rejected.

9. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the parties to the lis.

10. The only question that arises for consideration is, whether the writ petitioner is eligible for Special Family Pension in the context of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008. For better appreciation, the said Rules are extracted hereunder: “ Section-3 Para 105

(a) Special Family Pension may be granted to the family of Service Personnel if his death occurred in the circumstances mentioned in category ‘B’ and category ‘C’ of Regulation 82 of these Regulations due to or hastened by:

(i) A wound, injury or disease which was attributable to military service.

(ii) Was due to aggravation by service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during service and in case of death after retirement / discharged. Provided that the service personnel had retired / discharged otherwise than voluntarily / at own request on compassionate ground before completion of terms of engagement.

(b) The question whether death is attributed to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008 contained in Appendix IV to these Regulations.” Para 13 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel 2008, which reads as :

13. Death Cases:

(i) Due to Injury : Decision regarding attributability / aggravation in respect of death in injury cases for grant of Special Family Pension shall be taken by Service HQrs in case of Officers / OIC Records in case of PBOR.

(ii) Due to Disease : Decision regarding attributability / aggravation shall be taken by Service HQrs / OIC Records, as the case may be, on the basis of medical opinion of DGAFMS or such medical authorities as prescribed by him.”

11. In the context of the Rules, the medical opinion of DGAFMS would be relevant. The opinion of the Medical Board reads as under: “ Perusal of the documents show that the individual, an old case of Immune Surveillance on ART, died enroute while travelling from unit to hometown in a train. Postmortem examination declared the cause of death as Pulmonary Tuberculosis in an established known case of HIV positivity at a later date is considered as part of the AID Complex and is not attributable to military service in terms of Para 1 of Chapter VI of GMO 2002, Amendment 2008.”

12. The Medical Board Proceedings also reveals that even when the deceased army personnel was in service, he suffered Immune Surveillance. This fact was recorded by the Medical Board Proceedings dated 10.02.2007. Even at that point of time, the Medical Board formed an opinion that the

disability was not attributable to service. Further, a finding was made that it was not aggravated by service. Therefore, even when the deceased army personnel was in service, the Medical Board made a finding that he suffered disability as stated above and such disability is not attributable to service nor aggravated by service.

13. A conjoint reading of the Medical Board proceedings of the year 2007 and the medical opinion of DGAFMS dated 13.11.2014 would show that the army personnel, though died in service while travelling from Jaipur to Coimbatore at Chennai, the cause of death is not attributable either to the service or aggravated by service.

14. Regarding the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra, Para 30.7 itself distinguishes that in the said case the relevant rules regarding attributability and aggravation continue to hold that if cause of disability is unknown, and presumption of attributability is not rebutted, then the disability is attributable to service.

15. In a case where disability is unknown, then the benefit of doubt may be extended to the Army Personnel and if the cause of death and the disability are very much known and diagnosed by the Medical Board, then the grant of Special Family Pension is to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated under the Pension Regulations.

16. Therefore, pension, though given the status of a right under the constitution still exists within the contours of the scheme framed by the Government under relevant Rules, in the present case, it is the Pension Regulations for the Army 2008. That apart, the Tribunal considered the fact that the case of the writ petitioner was considered for grant of family pension in the year 2014 itself and pertinently, the claim was rejected, which was communicated to the writ petitioner vide Artillery Records dated 04.12.2014 wherein it advised the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the appellate authority on first appeal against the rejection of Special Family Pension within six months, if she desires. But, she did not prefer any appeal. She waited for about 10 years to approach the Army Forces Tribunal and therefore, the delay also was held against the writ petitioner. If the family pensioner is beneficiary of the scheme and application is filed belatedly, then the delay need not be held against the family pensioner. In cases where the claim for Special Family Pension has been rejected by the competent authority granting opportunity to prefer an appeal and the appeal had not been preferred, thereafter the family pensioner cannot maintain a petition by filing an application after ten years.

17. In any event, the case of the petitioner does not fall under the eligible criteria contemplated under the Pension Regulations and therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, which is impugned. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 09-10-2026 Index: Yes Speakingorder Neutral Citation: Yes KST To

1. The Secretary Ministry Of Defence, Govt. Of India, New Delhi-110 011.

2. The Chief Of The Army Staff South Block, IHQ Of MOD (Army), New Delhi-110 011

3. The Office-in-charge Topkhana Abhilekh, Artillery Records, Pin-908 802 C/o-56 Apo

4. The Principal Controller Of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad U.P-211 014

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN J. KST WP No. 40118 of 2025 09-10-2026