Case: Renu Devi and Ors Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors

1. Leave granted. 2. These two appeals raising common questions of law have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 3. Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No. 37356 of 2017-Renu Devi v. Union of India and Ors. has been filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2017 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench at Chandimandir, by which O.A. No. 4313 of 2013 filed by the Appellant praying for grant of Special Family Pension w.e.f. 15.09.2004 has been dismissed. M.A. No. 1075 of 2017 seeking leave to appeal has also been dismissed by Armed Forces Tribunal by order dated 10.07.2017. 4. Civil Appeal No. 2538 of 2019 has been filed against the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 08.05.2018, by which O.A. No. 449 of 2014 filed by Smt. Rekha Devi praying for grant of Special Family Pension w.e.f. 18.06.2003 has been rejected. 5. It shall be sufficient to notice the facts in Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No. 37356 of 2017 -Renu Devi v. Union of India and Ors. for deciding these two appeals. 6. The husband of the Appellant Late Sepoy Vikash died while on casual leave on 14.09.2004. O.A. No. 4313 of 2013 was filed praying for grant of Special Family Pension. Late Sepoy Vikash joined the Army Service on 30.07.2000 and died on 14.09.2004 in a road accident while he was on 14 days casual leave w.e.f. 04.09.2004 to 17.09.2004. The Tribunal rejected the claim holding that it is not covered by the Regulations. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been filed. 7. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that the deceased husband being on casual leave, he has to be treated for all purposes on duty and when husband of the Appellant died on duty, he is entitled for the Special Family Pension. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Leave Rules for the Services (Volume -I -Army), Rule 10. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that Armed Forces Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim since it is not covered by the Statutory Regulations and conditions for grant of Special Family Pension were not fulfilled in the present cases. Learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal has referred to relevant Regulations as well as Government of Indias order. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on Rule 10, which dealt with casual leave, which is to the following effect: 10. Casual leave counts as duty except as provided for in Rule 11(a). It cannot be utilised to supplement any other form of leave or absence, except as provided for in Clause (A) of Rule 72 for personnel participating in sporting events and tournaments. Casual leave due in a year can only be taken within that year. If, however, an individual is granted casual leave at the end of the year extending to the next year, the period falling in the latter year will be debited against the casual leave entitlement of that year. 11. Regulation 213 of Pension Regulation for the Army, 1961 (Part-I) provides as follows: 213. A special family pension may be granted to the family of an individual if his death was due to or hastened by- (a) a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to military service, OR (b) the aggravation by military service of a wound, injury or disease, which existed before or arose during military service. 12. Government of India has also issued an order on 31.01.2001 dealing with Family Pensionary Benefits in Attributable/Aggravated cases. Part II of the O.M. dated 31.01.2001 is as follows: 5. Special Family Pension (SFP) 5.1 In case of death of an Armed Forces Personnel under the circumstances mentioned in category B or C of Para 4 above, Special Family Pension shall continue to be admissible to the families of such personnel under the same conditions as in force hitherto. 13. Categories B and C mentioned in Part II of the above order were dealt in Para 4.1, which is to the following effect: 4.1 For determining the pensionary benefits for death or disability under different circumstances due to attributable/aggravated causes, the cases will be broadly categorised as follows: XXXX Category-B Death or disability due to causes which are accepted as attributable to or aggravated by military service as determined by the competent medical authorities. Disease contracted because of continued exposure to a hostile work environment, subject to extreme weather conditions or occupational hazards resulting in death or disability would be examples. Category-C Death or disability due to accidents in the performance of duties such as: (i) Accidents while travelling on duty in Government Vehicles or public/private transport. (ii) Accidents during air journeys (iii) Mishaps at sea while on duty. (iv) Electrocution while on duty, etc. (v) Accidents during participation in organised sports events/adventure activities/expeditions/training. 14. Leave Rule 10 as quoted above provides that casual leave counts as duty but the mere fact that a person on casual leave although is treated on duty, shall not be automatic entitlement to special family pension. The Regulation 213 has to be satisfied before Special Family Pension can be granted to the family of individual on his death, in which circumstances, death shall be treated to be attributable to military service or aggravated by military service as has been explained in O.M. dated 31.01.2001 as extracted above. As per Para 5.1 in case of circumstances mentioned in category B or C, Special Family Pension shall be admissible. 15. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that death while on duty itself is sufficient for grant of Special Family Pension. If we accept the above submission, categories B and C as extracted above shall become redundant. When Ministry of Defence has formulated a policy by letter dated 31.01.2001, the claim has to be examined on the basis of said policy and claim of the Appellants being not covered by either category B or C, Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the claim. Tribunal has noticed O.M. dated 31.01.2001 and has rightly come to the conclusion that Appellant was not entitled for the Special Family Pension. Ordinary Family Pension has already been granted to the Appellant, which has been noticed in the judgment.

Decision:
0[ds]14. Leave Rule 10 as quoted above provides that casual leave counts as duty but the mere fact that a person on casual leave although is treated on duty, shall not be automatic entitlement to special family pension. The Regulation 213 has to be satisfied before Special Family Pension can be granted to the family of individual on his death, in which circumstances, death shall be treated to be attributable to military service or aggravated by military service as has been explained in O.M. dated 31.01.2001 as extracted above. As per Para 5.1 in case of circumstances mentioned in category B or C, Special Family Pension shall be admissibleIf we accept the above submission, categories B and C as extracted above shall become redundant. When Ministry of Defence has formulated a policy by letter dated 31.01.2001, the claim has to be examined on the basis of said policy and claim of the Appellants being not covered by either category B or C, Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the claim. Tribunal has noticed O.M. dated 31.01.2001 and has rightly come to the conclusion that Appellant was not entitled for the Special Family Pension. Ordinary Family Pension has already been granted to the Appellant, which has been noticed in the judgment.