IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3436 of 2007 MAMTA DEVI, W/O- LATE EX-SEP. PURAN SINGH ARMY NO. 4268966 M, R/O- VILLAGE – SHAHPUR, DEFENCE COLONY, P.O. DANAPUR, P.S. – DANAPUR DISTRICT – PATNA (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DEFENCE SECRETARY, ARMY, DEFENCE H.Q. NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF, ARMY H.Q. , DEFENCE H.Q. , NEW DELHI. 3. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, P.C.D.A. (PENSION) ALLAHABAD (u.p.) 4. THE RECORD OFFICER, BIHAR REGIMENT, ABHILEKH KARYALAYA RECORDS, THE BIHAR REGIMENT, DANAPUR CANTT. – 801503. ----------- 4. 23.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no. 1. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Union of India. The grievance of the petitioner is that husband of the petitioner died on account of disease developed in the Gall Bladder while in service. In the above circumstances, submission is that the petitioner being the widow was entitled to Special Family Pension on the ground that since the husband of the petitioner had joined the service when there was no such disease. The disease developed in the Gall Bladder is attributable to the service rendered by him as there is nothing to show that the husband of the petitioner was suffering from any disease prior to joining Military Service. - 2 - Learned counsel for the Union of India while filing a counter affidavit submits that Special Family pension is payable only in case of death which could be attributed to the service rendered to the military service. The death of the petitioner which resulted on account of illness due to disease developed in the Gall Bladder was not attributable to the military service which is evident from the medical certificate annexed as Annexure – R/5. Considering the submissions made above and on perusal of the respective pleadings, the submission of the petitioner that certificate which is contained in Annexure- R/5 could not be accepted since at the time of enrollment husband of the petitioner there was no clinic note to the effect that the petitioner was suffering from any disease. The controversy raised could not be adjudicated in the writ proceedings as the same requires detail examination of disputed question of fact. Considering the above, I do not find any merit in this writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)