Case: Renu Devi and Ors Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors

2. These two appeals raising common questions of law have been heard together and are being decided by this common order3. Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No. 37356 of 2017-Renu Devi v. Union of India and Ors. has been filed challenging the order dated 25.04.2017 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench at Chandimandir, by which O.A. No. 4313 of 2013 filed by the Appellant praying for grant of Special Family Pension w.e.f. 15.09.2004 has been dismissed. M.A. No. 1075 of 2017 seeking leave to appeal has also been dismissed by Armed Forces Tribunal by order dated 10.07.20174. Civil Appeal No. 2538 of 2019 has been filed against the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal dated 08.05.2018, by which O.A. No. 449 of 2014 filed by Smt. Rekha Devi praying for grant of Special Family Pension w.e.f. 18.06.2003 has been rejected5. It shall be sufficient to notice the facts in Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No. 37356 of 2017 -Renu Devi v. Union of India and Ors. for deciding these two appeals6. The husband of the Appellant Late Sepoy Vikash died while on casual leave on 14.09.2004. O.A. No. 4313 of 2013 was filed praying for grant of Special Family Pension. Late Sepoy Vikash joined the Army Service on 30.07.2000 and died on 14.09.2004 in a road accident while he was on 14 days casual leave w.e.f. 04.09.2004 to 17.09.2004. The Tribunal rejected the claim holding that it is not covered by the Regulations. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been filed.

Court's reasoning:
14. Leave Rule 10 as quoted above provides that casual leave counts as duty but the mere fact that a person on casual leave although is treated on duty, shall not be automatic entitlement to special family pension. The Regulation 213 has to be satisfied before Special Family Pension can be granted to the family of individual on his death, in which circumstances, death shall be treated to be attributable to military service or aggravated by military service as has been explained in O.M. dated 31.01.2001 as extracted above. As per Para 5.1 in case of circumstances mentioned in category B or C, Special Family Pension shall be admissibleIf we accept the above submission, categories B and C as extracted above shall become redundant. When Ministry of Defence has formulated a policy by letter dated 31.01.2001, the claim has to be examined on the basis of said policy and claim of the Appellants being not covered by either category B or C, Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the claim. Tribunal has noticed O.M. dated 31.01.2001 and has rightly come to the conclusion that Appellant was not entitled for the Special Family Pension. Ordinary Family Pension has already been granted to the Appellant, which has been noticed in the judgment.