IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14160 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 16, 2009 Akhtari Khatun .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The Union of India & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Order dated 8.10.2003 (Annexure P-4), Order dated 24.5.2004 (Annexure P-7) and Order dated 9.5.2006 (Annexure P- 11). The effect of each of the orders is that request of the petitioner for special family pension has been rejected by the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) and thereafter, in appeal, on the ground that cause of death of the husband of the petitioner is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has set up a case that husband of the petitioner had gone to market to purchase ration for CWP No.14160 of 2007 [2] the Unit, and therefore, it was in line of duty that the husband of the petitioner died, hence the claim for special family pension. By way of written statement filed, it has been brought out that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for the reason that Court of Enquiry was held. It transpired that husband of the petitioner died on account of head injury in a road traffic accident with a private Maruti Car while he had gone for making purchases for his personal house-hold in old Panchkula Market, Chandimandir on 28.6.2002. From the reply, it can further be deciphered that Court of Enquiry proceedings dated 5.7.2002 conclude that husband of the petitioner had died while doing private purchases and the act of the husband of the petitioner at the time of accident, was not related to military duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw the attention of the Court towards any document, material or evidence to indicate that petitioner is entitled to special family pension. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 16, 2009 JUDGE avin