-1- Civil Writ Petition No.18617 of 2006. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 15,2008. Shrimati Premwati wife of late Sgt. Ram Kanwar ... Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. B.S. Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL,J. Husband of the petitioner Sgt. Ram Kanwar was on the posted strength of Western Air Command (U) Air Force Station, Subroto Park, New Delhi. He was detailed for station -2- Civil Writ Petition No.18617 of 2006. duty on August 26, 1989. He left for duty on his scooter from his residence at about 1100 hrs. He met with an accident with a bus near his Unit and died of multiple injuries on August 26, 1989 in Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. The petitioner was granted Ordinary Family Pension. Claim of the petitioner for Special Family Pension was rejected on the ground that death of Sgt. Ram Kanwar was not attributable to or aggravated by Air Force Service. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the action of the Army Authorities whereby case of the petitioner for Special Family Pension has been rejected and it is prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to release the same to the petitioner from the date of her husband's death. In the written statement filed by the respondents, the first objection taken is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as husband of the petitioner had died in road accident at Delhi. Further, it has been pleaded that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The petitioner's husband died in road accident in 1989 and the pension claim was rejected on April 01, 1991. The petitioner has approached this Court after the expiry of fifteen years. The appeal against the order rejecting Special Family Pension was also not filed in time. It has been further averred that medical documents of the petitioner's husband have -3- Civil Writ Petition No.18617 of 2006. been destroyed after stipulation retention period of fifteen years from the date of death. It is further pleaded that the cause of death of the late Airman was not considered as attributable to service by the Pension Sanctioning Authority and hence the claim for Special Family Pension was rejected and the petitioner was granted Ordinary Family Pension. We have heard Mr. B.S. Rathee, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing for the respondents and have gone through the records of the case. So far as contention of learned counsel for the respondents that this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition is concerned, the same merits rejection. The petitioner being permanent resident of the State of Haryana, this Court has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the controversy. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Gahtori v. Chief of Army Staff and another, 2000 (1) Supreme Court Cases 525 that the Chief of Army Staff may be sued anywhere in the country. In that case although the summary court-martial proceedings against the appellant were conducted in the State of Punjab, it was held that dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court, Allahabad, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, was not justified and that placing reliance only on the cause of action was also not justified. The appeal -4- Civil Writ Petition No.18617 of 2006. was allowed by the Apex Court and the writ petition was restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits. Another objection of learned counsel for the respondents regarding delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court also merits rejection. The petitioner was getting Ordinary Family Pension and we would not like to disallow her claim for Special Family Pension just on the ground of delay and without considering the same on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before us copy of the written statement dated August 30, 2006, filed by the respondents in Civil Writ Petition No.5971 of 2006 (Miss. Suman Lohchab & Others v. Union of India and Others). The same is ordered to be placed on the record of this case. In Suman Lohchab's case (supra), father of the petitioners Sgt. R.C. Lohchab was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on February 19, 1979 and died on May 06, 1992 due to road accident while on the posted strength of Air Force Station Velahanka. His wife Smt. Kamlesh Lohchab also died in the same accident. Two daughters and one son survived the deceased. Special Family Pension case was rejected by the Pension Sanctioning Authority and Ordinary Family Pension was granted. The children of the deceased Airman filed Civil Writ Petition No.5971 of 2006 in this Court. In the reply, in the `Preliminary Submissions', the -5- Civil Writ Petition No.18617 of 2006. respondents submitted as under:- “ 1. That during the pendency of the Writ Petition, First Appellate Committee vide letter No. Air HQ/41005/Sgt/SFP/PA) dated 13-06-2006 has considered the cause of death as attributable to Air Force service and sanctioned Special Family Pension to the petitioner and a Service Certificate has also been issued stating the cause of death of the deceased as “attributable to Air Force Service' and to implement this decision necessary PPO has also been issued in favour of the petitioner.” In the present case, petitioner's husband was enrolled in Indian Air Force on January 02, 1970. He died in road accident on August 26, 1989 while posted at Headquarter Western Air Command (U) Air Force Station, Subroto Park, New Delhi. In this case written statement was filed by the respondents on June 19, 2007 i.e much after the written statement dated August 30, 2006 filed by the respondents in Suman Lohchab's case (supra). The facts of Suman Lohchab's case (supra) and this case are similar on all fours. The respondents cannot be permitted to take different -6- Civil Writ Petition No.18617 of 2006. stand in this writ petition, which is obviously discriminatory to the petitioner. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents has nothing to bank upon. Consequently, without going into the further details and case law in the present context, we allow this writ petition, quash the orders passed by the respondents whereby Special Family Pension was declined to the petitioner and direct the respondents to consider the cause of death of petitioner's husband as attributable to Air Force Service and sanction Special Family Pension to the petitioner. The respondents are also directed to issue Service Certificate stating the cause of death of the deceased as “attributable to Air Force Service” and to implement this decision necessary Pension Payment Order (PPO) be issued in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the petitioner will be entitled to claim interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum on the delayed payment. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE February 15, 2008. ak