SMT. CHARANJIT KAUR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 21-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, N.P. SINGH

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SMT. CHARANJIT KAUR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 21, 1994 
[P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India : Articles 21 and 32-Compensation-Death of 
Anny Officer in mysterious circumstance~inding of enquiry that death not 
attributable to military service, but report withheld from petitioner-wife as being 
C highly confidential-Claim for Syc,cial Family Pension and Children Al-
lowance rejected by authorities as petitioner could not make out that death 
was on account of or during, military service-Held, the officer tjied while in 
service, in mysterious circumstances-His death attributable to, and ag-
gravated by, military service--l'etitioner, entitled to Special Family Pension 
D and Children Allowance-Rs.6 lakhs to be paid as compensation-Casual 
manner of preparing affidavit criticised-Investigation to be made at the 
highest level-Chief of Anny Staff to look into the matter. 
E 
F 
The petitioner's husband, a Major in the Army died in mysterious 
circumstances. The petitioner-wife was given a post- mortem report which 
attributed the death to extensive burns. 
After over 7 years, and several letters, she was informed that the 
enquiry held had found that the death of her husband was not attributable 
to military service. Her claim for Special Family Pension and Children 
Allowance was rejected in July 1985 with the intimation that she could 
appeal within 6 months if she was dissatisfied with the order. She was 
refused a copy of the enquiry report as being a highly confidential docu-
ment. 
' 
The petitioner-wife approached this Court claiming Special Family 
G Pension and Children Allowance. She also claimed damages of Rs.7 ,50,000. 
The authorities inter alia contended that they had not denied the 
pension and allowance to the petitioner but that she had failed to file a 
review with them. They also admitted that the Court of Inquiry could not 
conclusively prove whether the officer's death was one of murder or of 
H suicide. 
200 
>--
..,,,,, 
.. 
/-· 
CHARANJITKAUR v. U.0.1. 
201 
Allowing the petition, this Court 
A 
HELD : 1. The conduct of the authorities has, right from the incep-
tion, been utterly irresponsible. There is a good deal of substance in the 
allegation that the death of the petitioner's husband was in mysterious 
circumstances. Further, no enquiry whatsoever seems to have been made 
and if made; its results were kept a secret. That such an incident should B 
have occurred in the presence of the responsible Army officers and should 
go uninvestigated and in fact completely ignored is all the more barning. 
There is a good deal in this case for which the authorities have to answer. 
This is apart from the fact that till this day, the case has been handled 
with culpable negligence and cynical indifference. This is a matter which C 
requires investigation at the highest level. The matter should be personally 
looked into by the Chief of the Army Staff. [208-C-F] 
2. In the facts of the case, the conclusion is inescapable that the 
officer died while in service in mysterious circumstances and his death is D 
attributable and aggravated by the military service. The responsibility of 
his death is prima f acie traceable to the act of criminal omissions and 
commissions on the part of the concerned authorties. (208-G] 
3. The petitioner is entitled to the Special Family Pension and 
Children Allowance, according to the relevant Rules, w.e.f. 23 June 1978, E 
that is the date of the death of her husband with interest at 12% p.a. 
(208-G] 
Compensation quantified at Rs.6,00,000 is granted. [208-H] 
4. The affidavit of the authorities has been prepared in the most F 
casual manner as is apparent even from the kind of language and the 
grammatical as well as factual mistakes which have been committed in it, 
and is replete with unspecific and omnibus statements. (206-H, 207-A] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 45 of 1989. 
G 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
M.C. Dhingra for the Petitioner. 
V.V. Vaze, AS. Bhasme and Ms. A Subhashini for the Respondents. H 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SAWANT, J. 1. This case is a glaring example of gross negligence 
and callousness on the part of the authorities and the consequent in-
describable mental torment and physical and financial hardship caused to 
B 
the widow and two minor children of an Army officer. The apathy and the 
extremely casual 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.