'Vice Of Delays & Latches': Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Plea Of Army Officer's Widow Seeking 'Liberalized Family Pension' Beyond 3 Yrs
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea of an army officer's widow seeking a liberalized family pension since it was restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the application but the same was filed after a lapse of more than 10 years after the death of the officer.Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "There being an evident abysmal...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea of an army officer's widow seeking a liberalized family pension since it was restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the application but the same was filed after a lapse of more than 10 years after the death of the officer.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "There being an evident abysmal failure on the part of the concerned, to promptly raise an espousal before the competent adjudicatory forum. Resultantly therebys the said delay entrenching the relevant motion with a vice of delay and laches."
The plea was filed by the widow of an army officer, Naik Surinder Kumar posted near the Indo-China Border in 2009. Kumar while helping civil administration and military authorities in quelling a massive forest fire suffered fatal injuries when a burnt tree fell on him and resulted in his death.
Kumar had suffered fatal head injuries along with cardio-respiratory collapse and was duly declared a Battle Casualty.
The plea sought setting aside the part of the order whereby the Armed Forces Tribunal held that Kumar's wife is entitled to the Liberalized Family Pension instead of the Special Family Pension for life but the same is restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of application in 2019.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that a prompt intimation was made to the widow of the deceased officer with respect to the fatal injury suffered by the Officer during the firefighting operation.
"Despite the said prompt intimation being made to the present petitioner, nonetheless, hers sleeping over the claim relating to the endowment vis-à-vis her of the relevant pensionary benefits," noted the bench.
The Court also rejected the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the case of the petitioner's husband would fall under Category "E" of the Government policy, instead of Category "D" and hence the three-year restriction would not be applicable.
Perusing the policy, the Court observed that, "when the death or disability rather becomes so encumbered upon the Army Personnel concerned, thus during his rendering employment in aid of civil administration, besides when upon his dealing with natural calamities, thereupon, the respective disability or death as befalls upon the defence personnel, thus would make supra fall in category 'D'"
In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.
Mr.Navdeep Singh ,Advocate with Ms. Roopam Atwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Chawla, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondent – UOI.
Title: Champa Thakur v. Union of India and Others