- (1.) This case is a glaring example of gross negligence and callousness on the part of the authorities and the consequent indescribable mental torment and physical and financial hardship caused to the widow and the two minor children of an Army Officer. The apathy and the extremely casual attitude adopted by the concerned officers travelled even to the proceedings in this Court and are writ large on the affidavit in reply which they have filed in response to the petition. The petitioner's husband, Mukhbain Singh was commissioned as a Lieutenant in the Indian Army on or about 13-10-1963 according to the petitioner and on 1-6-1968 according to the respondent-authorities, and was promoted to the rank of Major on 24-5-1978. On promotion, he was posted at Kargil on 10-6-1978. According to the petitioner, he complained of chest pain on 12-6-1978 and was removed to Leh on 16-6-1978. The diagnosis made was of Ischaemic heart disease. The petitioner who was married to Mukhbain Singh in 1971 was living in Meerut at the relevant time with her two children - a daughter born in 1972 and a son born in 1975. On receiving information of the illness of her husband, she rushed with her children to Leh on 16-6-1978. After a great deal of persuasion, the petitioner and her children were allowed to meet Mukhbain Singh who was then lying in a make-shift hospital which was devoid of life-saving treatment at the relevant time. She found her husband in a precarious condition. He was unable to move on his own. Both the petitioner and her husband requested the authorities to air-lift him to Ambala or Srinagar Military Hospital for proper treatment. This request was turned down. Upon this the petitioner and her husband requested the authorities to discharge him so that he, might move to Srinagar at his own risk. That request was also not acceded to. On the other hand, he was threatened with Court-martial. After a great deal of persuasion and pleading, on 19-6-1978 one Dr. Major Boffalo agreed to shift Mukhbain Singh from Leh to Ambala and told the petitioner that her husband would be airlifted to Ambala on 21-6-1978. The petitioner and her husband pleaded with the authorities that she and her children be allowed to accompany him but that request was also not acceded to. She was asked to move with her children independently from Leh, and reach Ambala to receive her husband there. The petitioner was not satisfied with the assurance given by the authorities and insisted that she would stay on till her husband was actually airlifted on 21-6-1979. On 21-6-1978, Mukhbain Singh was not airlifted. On enquiry, it was revealed that the Commanding Officer had not passed the necessary orders for his evacuation to Ambala Army Hospital. However, the authorities persuaded the petitioner to move to Ambala with an assurance that her husband would be airlifted to that place on 23-6-1978. Hence, on 22-6-1978 the petitioner with her children reached Srinagar and from there, reached Udhampur on 23-6-1978. On that day at the Udhampur check post, she was informed that her husband was not "well" and she should return to Leh. The petitioner rushed back to Leh the next day, i.e., on 24-6-1979. There she was to receive a rude shock when she was shown the burnt body of her husband. The authorities did not disclose to her the circumstances under which her husband had received the burns. Later on, she was only given a report of the post-mortem examination conducted by the Army Medical Authorities at Leh which attributed the death to "extensive burns".
(2.) According to the authorities, after Mukhbain Singh complained of chest pain at Kargil he was evacuated to Leh on 16-6-1978. He was advised transfer to Ambala on 22nd Jan., 1978. The transfer according to the authorities, "was not an emergency one". It is also the case of the authorities that it is Mukhbain Singh who did not board the plane on 23-1-1978. According to them, on that day he had gone to attend to some private business in the cook house and later his charred body was found with 98 per cent burns due to kerosene oil leading to irreversible shock. This was at 0803 hours on that day.
(3.) According to the petitioner, her husband's death took place in mysterious circumstances, particularly because when she saw her husband, he was unable to move around. It was, therefore, understandable as to how he could, on his own, move around to receive the said burns. He was in fact brought to the air-base at Leh from the Army Hospital in the custody of the Army Specialists according to the authorities, and was supposed to be in their custody till he was to board the plane. Hence she protested to the authorities at Leh, upon which she was told that the matter would be investigated and it is only after the investigation that she would be informed about the circumstances leading to her husband's death. Thereafter, she wrote several letters to the authorities for communicating to her the result of the enquiry; but only a few of the letters were answered intimating her that she would be informed in the matter when the report would become available. After more than seven years, the finding of the enquiry was that the death of her husband was not attributable to military service. She applied for a copy of the enquiry report so that she could challenge the same in appeal and claim Special Family Pension and Children Allowance. The authorities, however, refused to give her a copy of the report stating that it was a highly confidential document. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming both Special Family Pension and Children Allowance as well as damages of Rs. 7,50,000. According to the authorities, the case for granting Special Family Pension to the petitioner was initiated on 14-7-1978 but due to incomplete documents, a final decision could be taken only in July 1985. The petitioner was informed of the decision of the Government rejecting her case for the grant of the Special Family Pension vide letter dated 15th July, 1985 with the intimation that she could appeal against the decisions within a period of six months in case she was dissatisfied with the same. According to the authorities, the petitioner did not appeal and preferred to go to the Court.;