Smt Renu Bala vs Union of India on 4 November 2026

ORDER

JUSTICE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, MEMBER (J)

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 for quashing the impugned order dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure A-10) and seeking directions to pay 100% Special Family Pension to her.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the applicant, Shri Vinesh Kumar, was enrolled in the Army on 28.03.2002 and died in a road accident on 06.07.2013 while proceeding on leave to his hometown. The Court of Inquiry was conducted by Station Headquarter and his death was declared attributable to military service. However, the applicant was granted Ordinary Family Pension initially on 10.02.2014 and then she took up the matter for the grant of Special Family Pension with the PCDA (P). Subsequently, the applicant was granted Special Family Pension w.e.f. 31.12.2015. The applicant has two minor daughters from the wedlock and stated that after the death of her husband, the applicant and her minor OA 2705 of 2017 ...2/- children were turned out of the matrimonial home and she has no source of income other than the family pension. She submitted a representation on 27.04.2016 for the release of balance 25% share of insurance benefits to the Army Group Insurance Fund (AGIF), New Delhi. The AGIF vide letter dated 16.05.2016 informed her that the respondent No.4, mother of the deceased, had filed OA No.349 of 2014 for seeking payment of ¼ share of insurance benefits amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 19.01.2016 and accordingly, Rs.6,11,441/- share of insurance benefits including interest accrued thereon was released to the respondent No.4 on 05.05.2016. Thereafter, respondent No.4 sent a representation dated 28.12.2016 to respondent No.2 for division of the Special Family Pension. The same was forwarded to Zonal Recruiting Officer, Jalandhar Cantt with a request to send investigation report and recommendations duly mentioning the ratio of division as para 1(b&C) of IHQ of MoD (Army) letter. The respondent No.3, vide letter dated 10.04.2017 (Annexure A-8), did not recommend division of the family pension, taking into consideration the circumstances of both parties. The applicant vide her representation dated 14.08.2017 (Annexure A-9) to the Army Veteran Cell, New Delhi brought into notice the financial status of her as well as of respondent No.4. She requested that her family pension is only source available with her to support her life and her two minor daughters. However, respondent No.2, vide impugned order dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure A-10), divided the Special Family Pension between the applicant and respondent No.4 in the ratio of 75:25, without assigning any reasons and allegedly without considering the relevant facts and documents. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking OA 2705 of 2017 ...3/- quashing of the impugned order and a direction to the respondents to restore 100% Special Family Pension to her, as was being paid prior to the passing of the impugned order.

3. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply and submitted that husband of the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 28.03.2002 and died on 06.07.2013 due to motorcycle accident and the death was declared as ‘Physical Casualty’ and attributable to military service. The deceased was married to applicant on 13.11.2007. After marriage, the deceased had filled up fresh nomination forms on 10.09.2008 and declared his wife as nominee for Special Family Pension, DCRG and AGIF. After the death of the deceased, the applicant was granted Special Family Pension w.e.f. 07.07.2013 vide PPO dated 31.12.2015 (Annexure R-1). The mother of the deceased had earlier filed OA No.349 of 2014 in this Tribunal for sharing of Postal Life Insurance amount and AGIF benefits. Vide order dated 19.01.2016, respondents were directed to release the benefits of AGIF and PLI to the mother of the deceased after dividing the same in four equal share, the mother of the deceased being one of the Class-I heirs as per the schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The said order was forwarded to AGIF and APS Dte vide letter dated 03.02.2017 for compliance. Accordingly, AGIF paid a sum of Rs.6,11,441/- to the mother of the deceased. However, PLI Cell had withheld payment of the amount due to the mother of the deceased with an advice to submit succession certificate from the Hon’ble Court of Law to settle the claims. Accordingly, a copy of Court order dated 03.07.2017 passed in Succession Case No.05 of 2014 by the Additional Civil Judge (SD), Mukerian (UID No.PB 0352) and application dated 01.11.2017 received from the mother of the deceased have been forwarded to Addl. Dte OA 2705 of 2017 ...4/- Gen of APS for implementation of the orders of the Hon’ble Court. The mother of the deceased also approached Records The Dogra Regiment through a petition dated 28.12.2016 for division of Special Family Pension. As per IHQ of MoD(Army) letter dated 21.05.2012 and 17.04.2013, Record Office approached ARO Jalandhar Cantt to investigate the case and forward recommendations on the subject. In this regard, ARO Jalandhar Cantt vide letter dated 10.04.2017 intimated the following:

(a) Smt. Renu Bala (Wife of Late of Sep Vinesh Kumar) has two daughters from her marriage with deceased. She has no other source of income apart from the pension being received by her.

(b) Smt. Sumitra Devi (mother of Late of Sep Vinesh Kumar) is staying with her husband (Shri Jagdish Singh). Second Son (Shri Kewal Krishan) is married and living.

(c) As per AGI letter No A/56273/Claim/Ins/Dogra dt 16 May 2016, a sum of Rs 6,11,441/- has already been paid to the parents of the deceased Soldier (Smt Sumitra Devi mother of Late Sep Vinesh Kumar).

4. Based on investigation report received from ARO Jalandhar Cantt, Record Office processed the claim for division of Special Family Pension at the ratio of 75:25 between applicant and mother of deceased in accordance with the policy. However, while processing of the claim of division of Special Family Pension to PCDA(P) Allahabad, it came to the notice that Stn HQ, Unchi Bassi vide letter dated 17.08.2017 addressed to Army Veteran Cell had requested to permit the applicant to retain her full family pension by stating that the applicant does not enjoy a sound financial back up and is sustaining herself on a meager family pension only. However on the other OA 2705 of 2017 ...5/- hand, her in-laws are financially well of and do not require any financial support. It was also stated that the father of the deceased is a civil contractor and his elder son is working in a high income group at Chandigarh. Since both the agencies i.e. ARO Jalandhar Cantt and Station HQs Unchi Bassi, have put different comments/reports on division of Special Family Pension, Records The Dogra Regiment letter dated 25.10.2017 again approached ARO Jalandhar Cantt to re-investigate the matter in detail. Based on request of the Record Office, ARO Jalandhar Cantt again carried out informal interaction with Smt. Sumitra Devi and also called the applicant numerous times to report to their office but the applicant did not report for re- investigation of the case. In turn, the applicant filed the present OA to quash the letter dated 30.08.2017.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

6. The facts which emerge from the record are that the husband of the applicant died while proceeding on leave and his death was declared attributable to military service. There is no dispute that the applicant was granted Special Family Pension after the death of her husband. The dispute in the present OA is confined to the division of Special Family Pension between the applicant and respondent No.4, who is the mother of the deceased soldier.

7. The principal contention of the applicant is that she has two minor daughters to maintain and has no independent source of income other than the Special Family Pension. It has also been contended that respondent No.4 is residing with her husband and has sufficient financial support from her OA 2705 of 2017 ...6/- family. Therefore, according to the applicant, the decision to allocate 25% share of Special Family Pension to respondent No.4 is unjustified.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has contested the claim of the applicant and relies upon the judgment passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, in OA No.214 of 2016, Smt. Rajni Verma Vs. Union of India and Others, wherein, in similar circumstances, the claim for grant of 100% Special Family Pension to the widow was not accepted and the pension was divided between the widow and the mother of the deceased in the ratio of 70:30. It has been submitted that respondent No.4, being the mother of the deceased soldier, is also entitled to consideration of her claim for a share in the Special Family Pension in accordance with the applicable policy. Learned counsel has, therefore, opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of 100% Special Family Pension.

9. The material on record indicates that the claim of respondent No.4 for division of Special Family Pension was examined by the competent authorities in terms of the policy instructions issued by IHQ of MoD (Army). The matter was referred to ARO, Jalandhar Cantt for investigation and its report dated 10.04.2017 was taken into consideration while processing the division of pension in the ratio of 75:25. It is also evident that the financial circumstances of both parties were brought to the notice of the concerned authorities. The fact that the applicant has two minor daughters and is dependent upon the family pension has been duly noticed. However, these circumstances, by themselves, do not confer an absolute right upon the

OA 2705 of 2017 ...7/-

applicant to claim the entire Special Family Pension to the exclusion of respondent No.4.

10. We also find that Station Headquarters, Unchi Bassi had submitted a separate report dated 17.08.2017 recommending that the applicant be allowed to retain the entire family pension. However, the existence of a different recommendation does not, by itself, render the decision of the competent authority illegal, particularly when the matter had been examined by the concerned Record Office on the basis of the investigation report received from ARO, Jalandhar Cantt. The competent authority was required to consider the competing claims in accordance with the applicable policy instructions, and the applicant cannot claim 100% Special Family Pension merely on the basis of the recommendation made by one of the investigating authorities.

11. Smt. Rajni Verma’s case (supra) supports the proposition that the claim of the widow for the entire Special Family Pension cannot be accepted as an absolute entitlement without considering the claim of the other eligible claimant and the applicable policy. In the present case, the competent authority has ordered division of Special Family Pension in the ratio of 75:25, thereby retaining the major share of 75% in favour of the applicant. The applicant has not been able to establish that the aforesaid division is contrary to the applicable policy instructions or that the impugned order suffers from any illegality warranting interference by this Tribunal. The fact that respondent No.4 has already received her share of AGIF benefits is also not sufficient, by itself, to disentitle her from OA 2705 of 2017 ...8/- consideration of her claim for a share in Special Family Pension, as both are distinct benefits governed by their respective provisions.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 30.08.2017 (Annexure A-10). The applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of 100% Special Family Pension in her favour.

13. Accordingly, the present Original Application is dismissed.

14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

15. No order as to costs.

(Lt. Gen (Dr) Ranbir Singh)

(Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma) Member (A)

Member (J) 04th Nov, 2026 ‘MK’

Reportable or not