Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence D (Pension Grievances) New Delhi and 3 Others Vs Smt. Archana Rai

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22971-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4133 of 2025 Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence D (Pension Grievances) New Delhi And 3 Others Respondent :- Smt. Archana Rai Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶6

The Union of India has instituted the present writ petition against the judgment/order rendered by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No.648 of 2021 whereby the claim of the respondent for family pension consequent upon the invalidation of her husband in service who died thereafter on 18.07.1991 has been allowed.

¶7

We have carefully gone through the judgment/order passed by the Tribunal which has thoroughly dealt with the medical report on the basis of which the disability pension was denied to the deceased husband of the respondent.

¶8

The Tribunal taking note of the judgment rendered by the apex court in the case of Dharmvir Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 213 has categorically recorded that a presumption would be available to an army personnel for his induction in service as a fit person unless on detection of some disease, while

¶9

in service, it is found and opined otherwise by the medical board.

¶10

Taking aid of the proposition of law laid down by the apex court in the aforementioned judgment, the Tribunal further proceeded to put on record the reason which has served the basis of denial of disability pension to the deceased employee i.e. husband of the petitioner.

¶11

The reason extracted in the impugned judgment reads “Disease is constitutional in nature and not connected with military service.”

¶12

This remark in the medical report according to the Tribunal was a cryptic remark inadequate to deny the causal connection with military service particularly when he was fully fit since his enrollment.

¶13

The disease pointed out in the medical report as a matter of fact had been detected after about 8 years of service, therefore, the Tribunal on an empirical consideration of all the relevant circumstances came to the conclusion that the benefit of presumption as laid down by the apex court in the case of Dharmvir Singh (supra) was available to the petitioner for the purposes of allowing the family pension. The Tribunal has further recorded that the deceased employee had suffered 100% disability since two years prior to the date of invalidation from service on 27.01.1989 and had thereafter died on 18.07.1991.

¶14

In these circumstances family pension claimed by the respondent was allowed by according benefit of doubt in favour of the deceased employee whose disability was held to be aggravated/caused by the military service.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place any material before us or the Tribunal on the basis of which the reason recorded in the medical report can be said to have been a speaking reason depriving the respondent of the benefit of presumption as has been drawn.

¶16

The finding recorded by the Tribunal on the aspect of presumption in the given circumstances, in our humble opinion does not suffer from from any error or illegality calling for a different view.

¶17

The judgment rendered by the Tribunal is thus upheld for the reasons stated above as well as what has been recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgement.

¶18

The writ petition bereft of any merit is accordingly rejected.

¶19

( Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. ) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Shahnaz

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence D (Pension Grievances) New Delhi and 3 Others v. Smt. Archana Rai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence D (Pension Grievances) New Delhi and 3 Others v. Smt. Archana Rai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sepawali Ale @ Sepali Bagale Vs Union of India Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Defense, New Delhi and 4 Others

Dr. Narendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Education and Research Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs U.O.I. Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Communication Deptt. of Posts and 3 Others

Vikash Chaturvedi Vs Union of Bharat Thru. Secy. for Law and Justice Shashi Bhawan New Delhi and Another

Service No. SS-41331W Capt. Viraj Singh Chaudhary (Retd) Vs Armed Forces Tribunal Regional Bench Lko. Thru. Its Registrar and 2 Others

Rajendra Singhpaggal Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Pollution Control Board Lko.andORS