IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1818 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.32573/2002 Dated 28/03/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE RECORD OFFICER, CROPS OF MILITARY POLICE RECORDS, BANGALORE. 3. THE SECRETARY, ZILLA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICE CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER. -------------------------- ELSY ANTONY, W/O.LATE NAIK ANTONY P.D., (NO.6868365) PANAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKULAM P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. ADV.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No. 1818 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are the respondents in the Writ Petition. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. She approached this Court seeking a direction to the appellants to grant her all benefits and financial assistance available to a war-widow. She also prayed to quash Ext.P14 order of the competent authority rejecting her claim. The learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P14 and directed to grant her the benefits available to a war-widow. 2. The Writ Appeal is filed by the appellants contending that the respondent's husband did not die while fighting but, he died in an accident while riding a motor cycle. Therefore, she is ineligible to be treated as war-widow. The said point was earlier considered by a Division Bench of this Court and as per Ext.P12 judgment it was held that the contentions of the appellants on the above point is untenable. The relevant portion of Ext.P12 reads as follows: W.A.No.1818/2007 2 “We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident occurred when the deceased was travelling on a motor bike. It is in evidence that the deceased was travelling in connection with discharge of his duties as a soldier. He had not gone on sight seeing expedition. One cannot say that a person died while he was riding a motor cycle when he was discharging his official duty is none the less a person who had died in the battle field. This person was riding a motor cycle in connection with the defence operation at the war front. It is very unfortunate that such purile defences are urged by the Defence to deny a paltry sum that might ultimately paid to a widow whose husband sacrificed his life in connection with defence operation. The factum of the death is not disputed, that he died during duty hours and that he was in full uniform are all not in dispute. Such conduct of the Department is capable of sending wrong message to the people. Such contentions, will only act negatively in the mind of the people to co-operate with defence activities of the country.” 3. Relying on the above decision of the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation, the learned Single Judge rejected the contentions of the appellants and ordered to grant her W.A.No.1818/2007 3 benefits. The appellants have again mustered courage to canvass the very same point before us. According to them, the respondent cannot be treated as a war-widow. In view of the above quoted judgment, such a contention ill-comes from the mouth of the appellants. The Writ Appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps