SMT. SULEKHA RANI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 16-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
851
SMT. SULEKHA RANI
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1280 of 2019)
JULY 16, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Army Rules, 1954: r.13(3)(III)(v) – Army Jawan discharged
from service under the provisions of r.13(3)(III)(v) – He died six
years thereafter on 30 September 2007 – His wife (appellant) filed
O.A. claiming pension in respect of service rendered by her deceased
spouse in Indian Army  on the ground that no Invalidation Medical
Board was held  prior to discharge of her spouse – Armed Forces
Tribunal dismissed the O.A. – On appeal, held: Show cause notice
issued to the spouse of the appellant was to the effect that he was
medically unfit – r.13(3)(III)(v) is in the nature of a residuary
provision – It covers all other classes of discharge or, in other words,
discharge which does not fall under the preceding categories – The
specific provision in regard to medical unfitness is provided in
r.13(3)(III)(iii) where a person is found medically unfit for further
service – The manner of discharge provided is, “only on the
recommendation of an Invalidating Board – The discharge of the
appellant’s spouse without convening an Invalidation Medical
Board, therefore, suffer from an illegality – r.13(3)(III)(v) upon which
reliance was placed had no application to the case – It would not
operate in an area which is covered by medical unfitness – Appellant
entitled to family pension – For the purposes of computing family
pension, the service of the deceased spouse of the appellant is
deemed to have continued until 30September 2007 – Army Act, 1950.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The discharge of the appellant’s spouse without
convening an Invalidation Medical Board suffers from an illegality.
   [2019] 9 S.C.R. 851
851
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
The respondents have relied upon the response purportedly
addressed by the Jawan to the notice to show cause issued to
him.  The provisions Rule 13(3)(III)(v) upon which reliance has
been placed had no application to the case.  It would not operate
in an area which is covered by medical unfitness.  The case of the
appellant for grant of family pension deserves to be accepted.
For the purposes of computing the family pension, the service of
the deceased spouse of the appellant should be deemed to have
continued until 30 September 2007. No arrears of wages shall be
payable between the date of discharge and the date of death.  The
arrears of family pension shall be paid to the appellant within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.  The appellant is accordingly held to be entitled
to family pension.  [Paras 10, 11] [858-A-D]
Dharamvir Singh v. UOI (2013) 7 SCC 316 ; Union of
India v. Rajpal Singh (2009) 1 SCC 216 : [2008] 15
SCR 879 – referred to.  
Case Law Reference
(2013) 7 SCC 316
referred to
Para 4
[2008] 15 SCR 879
referred to
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1280
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2011 of the  Armed
Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 452 of 2010
and order dated 16.03.2016 in M.A. No. 185 of 2016 in O.A. No. 452 of
2010.
Majot K. Ramesh, Ms. Archana Ramesh, Vibhuti Sashant Gupta,
Ram Naresh Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, M. Khairati, Ms. Priyanka Das, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Ms. Ragini Pandey,  Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
853
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Admit.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of the Armed Forces
Tribunal1 at its Principal Bench, New Delhi.  While dismissing the Original
Application filed by the appellant, the AFT has rejected her claim for
grant of pension in respect of the service rendered by her deceased
spouse in the Indian Army.
3. The spouse of the appellant was enrolled in the Army on 23
April 1994.  He was posted at the Siachen Glacier from 13 September
1998. He was in SHAPE 1 medical category.  On 30 August 2000, he
was downgraded to low medical category P2.  He was then shifted to a
counter insurgency area in Jammu and Kashmir on 19 November 2000.
On 31 August 2001, he was discharged from service.  About 6 years
after the discharge, he died on 30 September 2007, leaving behind him
the appellant and their children.  A proceeding was initiated before the
AFT for the grant of pension.  This was denied to the appellant.
4. The grievance of the appellant is that no Inva
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.