Death Resulting From Fight Between Drunk Soldiers Not Covered Under Liberalised Family Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the death of a soldier resulting from a physical altercation with another soldier in drunken condition, does not qualify the deceased's family for benefits under the Liberalised Family Pension scheme.Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri refusing to cover soldier's death under clause "an act of violence/attack by extremists, anti-social elements, etc." said,"there was a fight between the husband of the petitioner and another colleague after consumption of liquor during which fight, he was shot by the said colleague which resulted into his death...bare perusal of the above would show that though, the same relates to an act of violence/attack by extremists or anti-social elements but the same will not cover a situation of a private fight amongst employees after being drunk."The plea was filed by the deceased soldier's widow challenging the impugned order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh, (AFT) by which, the benefit of Liberalised Family Pension was not granted to the petitioner.Counsel for the petitioner argued that though the benefit of Special Family Pension has already been granted to the petitioner but, the petitioner is rather entitled for the benefit of Liberalised Family Pension by treating the death of her husband to have happened during the war. Opposing the plea, the Union Government submitted that the benefit of Special Family Pension has already been granted to the petitioner but the benefit of Liberalised Family Pension can only be given in case, the death of an employee concerned occurs in a war zone or during happening of an operation and in the present case, the death of the late husband of petitioner happened at the hands of a colleague while he was posted in a unit and not during happening of any war or an operation being undertaken.After hearing the submissions, the Court said, "once, the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of Special Family Pension, the circumstances under which the husband of the petitioner died, cannot be treated to have been covered under the clause 'g', so as to grant her the benefit as is being claimed by her of Liberalised Family Pension, as is being claimed by her."Clause (g) entitles the Liberalised Family Pension to those soldier who dies as an "an act of violence/attack by extremists, anti-social elements, etc.”The Court also refused to accept the soldier's death during "battle inoculation training exercises or demonstration with live ammunition.”"A bare perusal of the above would show that the same can only be invoked in case there is a battle inoculation training exercises or demonstration with live ammunition, during which the death occurs whereas, in the present case, the death of the husband of the petitioner was due to the fight in drunken state between two Soldiers and that too not during any training exercise or live ammunition demonstration," it added.In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.Mr. R.S.Panghal, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate for the respondent – UOI.Title: Smt. Mukeshvati v. Union of India and othersClick here to read/download the order

Death Resulting From Fight Between Drunk Soldiers Not Covered Under Liberalised Family Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Death Resulting From Fight Between Drunk Soldiers Not Covered Under Liberalised Family Pension: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers