Two-judge bench dismissed the Union of India’s appeal against the award of special family pension to a mother of an army soldier who died during leave. Court held appellants bound by their own concession to a Division Bench precedent.
None, appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
L.P.A. No. 1032 of 2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 1032 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 23.08.2010
Union of India and others
-----Appellants
Versus
Smt. Surinder Kaur ---Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the appellants
M.M. KUMAR, J.
This appeal by Union of India is directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of C.W.P. No. 12987 of 1994 filed by Smt. Surinder Kaur mother of Lance Nayak Balwinder Singh Cheema. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had agreed that the controversy was squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Premwati v. Union of India and others 2008(3)
SLR 531. Her son was enrolled in the Indian Army on 17.03.1988. He was granted four days' leave from 01.09.1991 to 04.09.1991 for participating in tournaments. During the leave period, he met with an accident and died in the Civil Hospital at Fatehgarh Sahib. He has named his mother as next of kin. All the dues of the son of the petitioner, like gratuity, insurance, welfare contribution have been paid to her. However, her claim for grant of Special Family Pension/
-2-
L.P.A. No. 1032 of 2010 (O&M)
Ordinary Family Pension has been rejected by the appellants vide order dated 21.10.1993. Learned counsel for the appellants gave concession by stating that matter was covered in favour of the petitioner-respondent by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Premwati's case (supra). The relevant part of the judgment reads thus:
“It is agreed by the Ld. Counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Premwati Vs. Union of India and others 2008(3) SLR 531.”
Ms. Geeta Singhwal, learned counsel for the appellant
has argued that no pension would be admissible to the petitionerrespondent because the death of her son cannot be attributed to military service as her son was on leave. She has also argued that the judgment in Premwati's case (supra) has been stayed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
Having heard learned counsel, we are of the considered view that instant appeal is without any merit. Firstly, the appellants have agreed before the learned Single Judge that the matter was covered against them by a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Premwati's case (supra). It is not now open to them to dispute the aforesaid concession. With regard to second issue of stay of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it may be observed that there are no details available except a bald assertion. Moreover, the view
taken by this Court in the case of Roshan Jagdish Lal Duggal v.
-3-
L.P.A. No. 1032 of 2010 (O&M)
P.S.E.B. 1984(2) SLR is that the stay of the judgment would not deplete its precidential value. In para 11, this Court has made following observations:
“The admission of an appeal against the order of the High Court and the suspension of its operation during the pendency of the appeal does not have the effect of rendering it non-est till the disposal of the appeal nor has it been so held in the order dated February 14, 1983, dismissing C.W.P. No. 5911 of 1983 in limine, wherein the castigation of a few members of the Haryana Public Service Commission in another writ was not allowed to be utilised because this finding was sub judice before the Supreme Court. It is thus obvious that the ratio of Sukhdev Raj Sharma's case (supra) shall continue to be a binding precedent irrespective that an appeal therefrom is pending in the Supreme Court and its future operation suspended till its disposal.”
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
As the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE
(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE
August 23, 2010 Atul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed by the Union of India against the award of special family pension has merit given the respondents reliance on a Division Bench judgment.
Whether a pending stay order by the Supreme Court renders the cited Division Bench judgment non-est or deprives it of precedential value.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Premwati v. Union of India and othersRelied on¶14
Smt. Premwati v. Union of India and others 2008(3) SLR 531
Roshan Jagdish Lal Duggal v. P.S.E.B.Relied on¶26
Roshan Jagdish Lal Duggal v. P.S.E.B. 1984(2) SLR
Union of India
Smt. Surinder Kaur
M.M. Kumar
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
