'Soldier's Widow Should Not Have Been Dragged To Court': Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 50K Cost On Centre For Challenging Pension Order

The Supreme Court today (December 3) dismissed Union of India's appeal against order of Armed Forces Tribunal granting a Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) and other benefits to the widow of a soldier who died while on an Area Domination Patrol along the Line of Control.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih imposed cost of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant, observing that the widow of Naik Inderjeet Singh (deceased), should not have been dragged to court in such a case.

“In our view, in a case like this, the respondent ought not to have been dragged to this Court, and the decision making authority of the appellants ought to have been sympathetic to the widow of a deceased soldier who died in harness. Therefore, we propose to impose costs quantified as Rs.50,000/-, which will be payable to the respondent”, the Court observed.

Naik Inderjeet Singh was employed in the Indian Army on February 27, 1996. On January 23, 2013, while serving as part of an Area Domination Patrol under Operation Rakshak near the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, Singh complained of breathlessness while on duty in extreme climatic conditions between 1:00 a.m. and 3:30 a.m.

Adverse weather conditions necessitated his evacuation on foot to the nearest MI room at Chowkibal, where he was declared dead. The cause of death was recorded as cardiopulmonary arrest.

Initially, his death was classified as a “battle casualty” but was later changed to a “physical casualty attributable to military service.” His widow, Saroj Devi, was granted terminal benefits, including a special family pension. However, her request for an LFP was denied, leading her to file an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The Tribunal allowed her plea on August 23, 2019, and directed that she be granted the LFP and an ex-gratia lumpsum amount payable for battle casualties. The Union of India challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.

Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee argued that LFP is governed by the order dated January 31, 2001, issued by the Director (Pensions), Ministry of Defence. He submitted that LFP is admissible only in cases falling under categories D and E of paragraph 4.1 of the order. While category D was admittedly not applicable, he argued that the death did not fall under category E either, as it was classified as a “physical casualty.”

Senior Counsel K Parameshwar for the widow supported the tribunal's decision.

The Commanding Officer initially classified the death as a “battle casualty,” and issued a Battle Casualty Certificate. Clause 1(g) of Appendix A of Army Order 1 of 2003 classifies casualties occurring due to natural calamities or illness caused by climatic conditions near the LoC as “battle casualties.”

The Court held that the death resulted from illness caused by extreme climatic conditions, falling under the category of “Battle Casualties” as per Clause 1(g).

The Court further analysed category E of paragraph 4.1 of the January 31, 2001 order. Sub-clause (f) under category E, which includes deaths arising from war-like situations, applied to the deceased, the Court held. The Court held that “war-like situations” is an inclusive term and cannot be confined to specific instances listed under the clause.

“Clause (f) of category E is attracted when death arises as a result of war-like situations. The definition of death as a result of war-like situations is an inclusive definition, and the case cannot remain confined to sub clauses (i) to (iii) of category E (f). In this case, the death has occurred as a result of a war-like situation prevailing near LC. Therefore, we concur with the view taken by the Tribunal that clause (f) of category E was applicable”, the court held.

The Court dismissed the appeal and directed that the Tribunal's directions be implemented within three months. It further directed the appellant to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent within two months.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 13730 of 2024

Case Title – Union of India & Ors. v. Saroj Devi

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 942