Fateh Deep Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Kashmir Kaur after repeated set -backs in her arduous journey through the legal maze has ended up before this Court in this writ petition challenging orders dated 12.9.2011 (Annexure P/7) of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench, at Chandimandir (in short, the Tribunal) to assert her claim that she is the legally wedded and widow of late Pioneer Corps (PNR) Darshan Singh bearing No. 621542 and thus was entitled to continuation of family pension. The essential facts that deserve to be highlighted are that initially Kashmir Kaur instituted a suit before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) seeking a declaration in this regard and the learned court through judgment and decree dated 29.4.2009 (Annexure P/5) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved over these findings the then plaintiff now petitioner assailed the same before the first appellate court of learned District Judge. Consequent upon enforcement of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, the matter was transferred to the Tribunal. It was through the impugned findings, her claim was declined. Hence, the petitioner has sought her relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by way of writ of certiorari for quashing these orders of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Tribunal in which she has challenged the orders dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure P/1) whereby the authorities had refused to continue and ordered recovery of family pension from her.
(2.) WE have heard at length Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner and Ms, Puneeta Sehti, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India and other respondents and have perused the record of the case. Undisputedly late PNR Darshan Singh was enrolled in Indian Army prior to the year 1946 and was discharged on 26.6.1946 and consequently died on 18.8.1998. Petitioner claiming to be the widow of the deceased Army man having solemnized marriage with him on 15.12.1956 claimed that she was entitled to family pension on account of death of her husband and further illustrated that children were born out of this wedlock. It is further alleged that on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations by inimical Ex -servicemen of her village, the authorities without affording her any opportunity stopped the pension being so granted to her in June, 2005 and vide orders dated 10.11.2005 ordered the recovery of the same and hence has led to this lis.
(3.) DURING the course of arguments, Ms. Puneeta Sethi has not in any manner assailed that the petitioner is around 70 years of age. Counsel for both the sides have conceded that stand of the authorities is based on some complaint purported to have been made by Ex. Risaldar Kulwant Singh and Ex. Subedar Rattan Singh, and some sort of inquiry by the authorities at the back of the petitioner and who have never testified in court thereby holding that in fact the petitioner was legally wedded wife of Piara Singh younger brother of deceased Darshan Singh. It is an admitted fact on the record that consequent upon death of the Ex -serviceman, the petitioner was granted family pension in terms of Regulation 218 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and since apparently the petitioner qualifies as eligible member of the family defined in Regulation 216 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and her name stands incorporated with effect from 15.12.1956 in the Sheet Roll and therefore, cannot deny her right to this family pension. Apparently it is certainly based on some sort of nomination that might have been made by the deceased Ex. Army man which has prompted the authorities to process her claim for the award of this pension. Ms. Rakhi Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has rightly argued that no such document has been proved on the record during the course of trial before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and which certainly is to the detriment of the Army Authorities. It is further contended by her that only reason of this denial of relief to her is based on the entry in the ration card and voters list whereby she has admitted as PW 1 that the same reflects her to be wife of Piara Singh. The Courts below have laid much emphasis on such documents which are certainly not of impeachable credence. Even these documents have not been legally proved on the record through the concerned official of the department and therefore, not much weight can be as signed to them. She has even examined her son Balwinder Singh as PW 4 born out of her wedlock with the deceased.;