- (1.) The husband of the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 5.3.1971. He died at a young age on 6.11.1974. The petitioner who is the widow was granted family pension. However, the pension was stopped with effect from 1.6.1975 on the ground that the death of her husband was neither attributable to nor aggravated by his military service (P-1). The petitioner was held entitled to and given ordinary family pension. She represented for the release of family pension on 2.7.1975 (P-2). On 10.1.1976, the petitioner being young widow remarried Shri Bhupinder Singh, younger brother of her late husband. A copy of the marriage certificate, dated 20.6.1976 has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. The required declaration form was also filled by her and submitted to the respondent authorities. It was declared that her husband had died and she has been living in commune with, and is contributing towards the support of the eligible heirs of the family of the deceased. On account of her re-marriage, the family pension granted to her was discontinued. On 14.12.1976, the petitioner made a representation for continued payment of family pension (P-5). A number of reminders from 1977 to 1990 were sent. Eventually, her case was taken by the Indian Ex- Services League Punjab on 16.1.1990 (P-6). On 22.10.1992, the respondent finally rejected her prayer for continuation of family pension. She has, thus, file the instant petition.
(2.) The respondents have taken the stand that deductions were made while making the payment from 7.11.1974 to 31.5.1975. The petitioner was advised to file an appeal, vide order dated 20.5.1975 (R-2). According to the respondents, the claim of the petitioner for Special Family Pension was rejected for the reason that the death of the husband of the petitioner was not attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The decision was communicated to her with the information that she may appeal against the decision within a period of six months, which was not done. It has also been claimed that the petitioner was not eligible for family pension after her re-marriage with the real brother of her deceased husband as she has been granted ordinary family pension under Special Army Instructions 2/S/64, vide order no. F/NA/910/75, dated 7.8.1975. The aforementioned stand is stated to have been conveyed to the petitioner on 3.2.1977 (R-3).
(3.) Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Regulations') provide for grant of family pension. He has placed reliance on Regulations 216 and 219, which were subject matter of consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamaljit Kaur v. Union of India, 1998 1 SCT 312 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Smt. Chawli Devi (R.S.A. No. 4249 of 2004, decided on 12.7.2005). According to the learned counsel, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforementioned two judgments because the proviso to Regulation 219 clearly envisages that various provisions specified in Regulation 219 were not to apply to a widow who has remarried her deceased husband's brother and who has continued to live a communal life with and/or contributes to the support of other living eligible heirs of her deceased husband. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Regulation 213, which provide for awarding Special Family Pension as the husband of the petitioner had died while he was in active military service.;