'Personnel On Casual Leave To Be Treated As On Duty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Special Family Pension To Soldier's Widow

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held the death of an Army personnel caused by cardiac arrest while he was on casual leave as attributable to military service, thereby granting special family pension to his widow. [2026 LL (PH) 261]

A Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal dismissed petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, which had granted special family pension in place of ordinary family pension to the widow.

Rejecting the Centre's contention that a soldier on casual leave is not on active duty, the Court observed that what is relevant is not whether the personnel was performing active duty at the moment of death, but whether he continued to be in service.

"It is immaterial that whether the death occurred was during the time he was serving on active duty or not, as the only aspect is to be seen that whether he was still in service at that time or not?"

The deceased soldier died of cardiac arrest on 17.01.2017, the first day of a spell of casual leave sanctioned from 16.01.2017 to 30.01.2017. He had by then rendered over 17 years of service.

His widow approached the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No. 512 of 2021. By order dated 15.12.2022, the Tribunal granted her special family pension with effect from 18.01.2017, the day following the date of death.

The Union of India assailed the order as perverse. Its sole submission was that since the death occurred due to cardiac arrest at a time when the soldier was not on active duty, the fatal episode could neither be attributed to nor said to have been aggravated by military service, and had in fact been assessed as not attributable to service.

The Bench framed two questions, firstly, whether the death could be said to be attributable to the military service rendered by the deceased; and second, whether a death occurring while the personnel was on casual leave could still be treated as attributable to military service.

The Court noted that cardiac arrest is traceable to the stress and strain endured during service. It referred to the classification of diseases  of the Pension Regulations and Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, under which stress and strain is recognised as a cause of cardiac arrest.

It pointed, "that the death of husband of respondent No.1 was due to cardiac arrest. It shall be noted that said cause of death is due to the stress and strain caused during the time he was rendering his service and a result of stress and strain, which is considered as a root cause of cardiac arrest, which was ultimately the cause of death of husband of respondent No.1."

The Bench placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Union of India through Secretary v. Khushbash Singh, LPA No. 978 of 2009, decided on 31.03.2010, which held that an Army personnel on casual or annual leave is to be considered on duty, save where Rule 11 of the Leave Rules operates to the contrary, and that where a disability arises from natural causes the enquiry is whether the intervention of army service caused it.

Holding that the grant of special family pension could not be treated as perverse either on facts or on the settled principle of law, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.

Title: Union of India and others v. Smt. Shakuntla Devi and another

CWP No. 23181 of 2026 (O&M)

Appearance: Ms. Bhavana Datta, Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners-UOI

Click here to read order