SANDHAYA DEVI PARMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(HPH)-1997-3-37
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on March 27,1997

SANDHAYA DEVI PARMAR Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

VIDYA DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-2003-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
SUNEHRU DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(HPH)-2005-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
KANTA DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-1998-4-13] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.SRINIVASAN, J. - (1.)This petition is filed by the wife of Lance Naik Balwant Singh Parmar who joined Army in 12, Dogra Regiment before December, 1976 In the month of May, 1986, he had come on annual leave and after the expiry of the leave and also the extension thereof he returned back to duty on 25 -7 -1986. He had written a letter to his brother from the place of work on 13 -7*1986 itself that he had arrived safely at the place of work and joined duty. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication in September, 1986 that her husband was not traceable since 2nd of August. 1986. There was a lot of correspondence between the petitioner and the authorities. Ultimately the petitioner was informed that in the Court of Inquiry held In September, 1986, it was decided that the petitioners husband had deserted the Army. The petitioner had been making representations for directing a search of her husband and his whereabouts and also praying for appropriate reliefs in the event, her husband was found to be not alive. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for quashing the orders passed by the respondents dismissing the services of her husband and directing them to accord family pension to her and other service benefits due to her husband.
(2.)In the reply filed by the respondents 1 to 3 in May, 1990, it was stated that the petitioners husband had informed his wife on 25 -7 -1986 and a copy of the letter written by the petitioners husband to his wife was enclosed as Annexure R -l It is seen from the annexure that it was not a letter written to the petitioner but it was written by the petitioners husband to his brother. There is nothing in the reply to show how a copy of the letter was available with the respondents. If they had intercepted the letter before it was posted and taken a copy thereof that should have been clearly mentioned in the reply. The reply does not set out the possession or custody of the said letter before it was produced in Court Apart from that, it is a matter for regret that the person who had signed the reply had not even taken care to verify whether the annexure was addressed to the petitioner or the petitioners husbands brother, The statement contained in the reply that it was a letter written to the petitioner by her husband is erroneous, Even when the authorities choose to file affidavits in this Court, they do not take care to verify the correctness of the statements contained therein and they simply sign the affidavits or replies without applying their mind. It is high time that the authorities took care to verify the correctness of the replies or affidavits filed in the Court before they signed the same.
(3.)In the reply, it is further stated that petitioners husband absented himself without leave from the Unit w.e.f 2nd of August, 1986 at 23.15 hours. It is also stated that in the Court of Inquiry held in September, 1986 it was found that the petitioners husband bad deserted the Army, Reference is made to the subsequent correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents. Nothing has been set out in the reply as to any attempt having been made by the concerned authorities to verify whether the petitioners husband met with an accident or had expired. The annexures filed with the said reply do not in any way help this Court to find out what exactly happened to the petitioners husband.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.