Supreme Court Dismisses Union of India's Appeal, Upholds Liberalised Family Pension to Widow of Soldier Who Died Near Line of Control Due to Extreme Climatic Conditions. Death Classified as Battle Casualty Under Army Order 1 of 2003, Entitling Widow to Liberalised Family Pension Under Category E(f) of Pension Order Dated 31st January 2001.

In Favour of Accused
  • 718
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The respondent, Saroj Devi, is the widow of late Naik Inderjeet Singh, who served in the Indian Army from 27th February 1996. On 23rd January 2013, while on duty as part of an Area Domination Patrol near the Line of Control (LC) in extreme climatic conditions, he complained of breathlessness. Despite immediate first aid, his condition deteriorated, and due to bad weather, air evacuation was not possible. He was evacuated on foot but was declared dead upon arrival at Chowkibal's MI room. The cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest. Initially classified as a 'battle casualty', the death was later reclassified as a 'physical casualty' attributable to military service. The respondent received all terminal benefits including a special family pension but was denied Liberalised Family Pension (LFP). She filed an original application before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which allowed her claim and directed the grant of LFP and ex-gratia lumpsum. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the pension order dated 31st January 2001, which grants LFP in cases of death under categories D and E of paragraph 4.1. The Tribunal had held that the case fell under Category E(f) (war-like situations). The appellants argued that the death was a 'physical casualty' not covered by Category E(f). The Court noted that the Commanding Officer had initially issued a Battle Casualty Certificate, and the death occurred while the deceased was operating near the LC in extreme climatic conditions. Relying on Army Order 1 of 2003, Appendix A, Clause 1(g), which classifies casualties occurring while operating on the International Border or Line of Control due to natural calamities and illness caused by climatic conditions as battle casualties, the Court held that the death was a battle casualty. The Court further held that Category E(f) of the pension order is inclusive and covers death arising from war-like situations, which includes the present case. The Court distinguished the cases of Kanchan Dua and Radhika Devi on facts. The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000 payable to the respondent, and the directions in the Tribunal's judgment were to be implemented within three months.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Liberalised Family Pension - Battle Casualty - Army Order 1 of 2003, Appendix A, Clause 1(g) - Death of a soldier due to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions while operating near the Line of Control falls under 'Battle Casualties' as per Clause 1(g) of Appendix A of Army Order 1 of 2003, entitling the widow to Liberalised Family Pension under Category E(f) of the pension order dated 31st January 2001. The court held that the death arose as a result of a war-like situation, and the inclusive definition of Category E(f) covers such cases (Paras 8-11).

B) Service Law - Liberalised Family Pension - Category E(f) - War-like Situations - Pension Order dated 31st January 2001 - The definition of death as a result of war-like situations in Category E(f) is inclusive and not confined to sub-clauses (i) to (iii). Death occurring due to extreme climatic conditions while on duty near the Line of Control in a war-like situation is covered under Category E(f) (Para 11).

C) Service Law - Costs - Imposition of Costs on Department - The court imposed costs of Rs.50,000 on the appellants for dragging the widow of a deceased soldier to court, directing that the decision-making authority ought to have been sympathetic (Para 13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the death of a soldier due to cardiopulmonary arrest caused by extreme climatic conditions while on duty near the Line of Control qualifies as a 'battle casualty' under Army Order 1 of 2003 and entitles the widow to Liberalised Family Pension under Category E(f) of the pension order dated 31st January 2001.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the Tribunal's judgment, and directed the appellants to implement the directions within three months and pay costs of Rs.50,000 to the respondent within two months.

Law Points

  • Liberalised Family Pension
  • Battle Casualty
  • War-like Situations
  • Army Order 1 of 2003
  • Category E(f) of Pension Order dated 31st January 2001
  • Death due to climatic conditions near Line of Control
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (SC) (12) 31

Civil Appeal No. 13730 of 2024 (Arising out of Diary No. 20250 of 2021)

2024-12-06

Abhay S. Oka

2024 INSC 921

Vikramjeet Banerjee (for appellants), K Parameshwar (for respondent)

Union of India & Ors.

Saroj Devi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal granting Liberalised Family Pension to the widow of a deceased soldier.

Remedy Sought

The respondent sought quashing of the order denying Liberalised Family Pension and a direction to grant LFP with interest.

Filing Reason

The respondent was denied Liberalised Family Pension despite her husband's death being initially classified as a battle casualty.

Previous Decisions

The Armed Forces Tribunal allowed the original application and directed grant of LFP and ex-gratia lumpsum. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the death of the deceased soldier due to cardiopulmonary arrest caused by extreme climatic conditions while on duty near the Line of Control qualifies as a 'battle casualty' under Army Order 1 of 2003. Whether the widow is entitled to Liberalised Family Pension under Category E(f) of the pension order dated 31st January 2001.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that LFP is governed by the order dated 31st January 2001 and is granted only in cases under categories D and E. The deceased's death was a 'physical casualty' not covered by Category E(f). Relied on Kanchan Dua and Radhika Devi. Respondent supported the Tribunal's judgment, relying on documents annexed to the counter affidavit, including the Battle Casualty Certificate and Army Order 1 of 2003.

Ratio Decidendi

Death of a soldier due to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions while operating near the Line of Control falls under 'Battle Casualties' as per Clause 1(g) of Appendix A of Army Order 1 of 2003. Such death arises as a result of a war-like situation, and the inclusive definition of Category E(f) of the pension order dated 31st January 2001 covers such cases, entitling the widow to Liberalised Family Pension.

Judgment Excerpts

In this case, the death has occurred as a result of a war-like situation prevailing near LC. Therefore, we concur with the view taken by the Tribunal that clause (f) of category E was applicable. The decisions in the cases of Kanchan Dua v. Union of India and Anr. and Radhika Devi v. Union of India and Ors. have been decided on the basis of the peculiar facts of the cases. The same can have no application to the facts of this case. In our view, in a case like this, the respondent ought not to have been dragged to this Court, and the decision-making authority of the appellants ought to have been sympathetic to the widow of a deceased soldier who died in harness.

Procedural History

The respondent filed an original application before the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking Liberalised Family Pension. The Tribunal allowed the application on 23rd August 2019. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court by way of a civil appeal arising out of Diary No. 20250 of 2021. The Supreme Court granted leave and dismissed the appeal on 6th December 2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Army Order 1 of 2003: Appendix A, Clause 1(g)
  • Pension Order dated 31st January 2001 issued by Director (Pensions), Ministry of Defence: Paragraph 4.1, Category E(f), Clause 6.1
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Hears Writ Appeals Challenging Single Judge Order Directing Approval of Teacher Appointments and Salary. The Appeals Question the Legality of Directions Issued Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Without a Final Verdict Extracted.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused in Murder Case Due to Absence of Overt Act and Completed Investigation. Bail Granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as Petitioner's Role Limited to Presence, No Recovery of Weapon, and Custodial Trial Not Req...