LPA No. 1259 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1259 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 05.01.2011 Union of India and others -----Appellants Versus Ranjit Kaur ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing the claim made by the petitioner-respondent who has been held entitled to Special Family Pension on the ground that her husband died on account of heart disease, which would necessarily be attributable to military service. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on Rule 10 of the Leave Rules of the Army as also the Regulation 219. It has been, thus, held that under the aforesaid Regulation if a widow has re-married to the brother of her deceased husband and continued to live a communal life and contributing to the support of other living LPA No. 1259 of 2010 (O&M) -2- eligible heirs then she would be eligible for family pension notwithstanding the fact that she has re-married. 2. The learned Single Judge further held on the strength of Regulation 213 that she would also be entitled to the benefit of Regulation 213, which provides for grant of Special Family Pension because her husband died of heart disease. According to the learned Single Judge, Special Family Pension is payable to family of an individual if the death was attributable to military service or aggravated by it and Rule 10 of Leave Rules of Army specifically provided that while on casual leave an army personnel would be deemed to be on duty. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner- respondent was on duty, although he was availing casual leave and is deemed to have died as envisaged by Regulation 213. Hence, he would be deemed to have died while on duty on account of heart disease attributable to Army Service. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and found that there is no room for interference in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In that regard, reliance may be placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Khushbash Singh, 2010(2) SCT 805 holding that an Army personnel while on casual leave or annual leave must be considered to be on duty except when by virtue of Rule 11 of Leave Rules, he could not be deemed to be on duty, if he had not actually performed duty in that year. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it has to be held that the husband LPA No. 1259 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of the writ petitioner-respondent was on duty when he was on casual leave and a massive heart attack which he suffered, would also be attributable to the military service. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appeal does not warrant admission. 4. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE January 05, 2011 Atul