Delay in Claim Not Fatal When Pension Wrongly Denied: Delhi High Court Upholds Arrears to Soldier’s Widow
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla upheld an Armed Forces Tribunal order directing the Central government to disburse arrears of Special Family Pension to the widow of an Army personnel who died in 1978 while on duty. The Court held that the delay in seeking the benefit in 2015 could not defeat her entitlement, as the Pension Sanctioning Authority had wrongly denied the claim despite a Court of Inquiry establishing that the soldier’s death was attributable to military service. The Bench granted twelve additional weeks for compliance, with interest applicable on delay.
The case concerned a petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal directing payment of arrears of Special Family Pension to the widow of an army personnel who died in 1978. The deceased soldier had been enrolled in the Indian Army in August 1965 and died on April 29, 1978, due to an electric shock while performing duties. A Court of Inquiry concluded that the death was attributable to military service. Based on this finding, the widow’s name was recorded in the service documents as the legal heir for pensionary benefits.
Following her husband’s death, she applied for Special Family Pension, but the Pension Sanctioning Authority, by an order dated March 5, 1979, rejected her claim on the ground that the death was not attributable to military service. She was thereafter granted ordinary family pension. The widow did not appeal the decision within the stipulated period. Decades later, in 2015, she again applied for Special Family Pension, which led to an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The authority allowed her appeal and granted the pension but made it effective only from October 12, 2015.
Aggrieved by the limited period of grant, she approached the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking arrears from the date of her husband’s death in 1978. The Tribunal accepted her plea, holding that she was entitled to Special Family Pension from the date of death. The Union of India contested the decision before the High Court, contending that the claim was barred by delay and that the widow had failed to challenge the 1979 decision within time. The respondent’s position was that the original rejection was erroneous as the Court of Inquiry had already held the death attributable to service, establishing her entitlement.
The Division Bench recorded that “the respondent be granted arrears of Special Family Pension from the date of the death of Puran, i.e., from 30 April 1978, till 11 October 2015, within two months.” The Court observed that the Tribunal’s reasoning was based on the principle that once the death was found attributable to service, entitlement followed as a matter of law.
The Bench noted that it had queried the counsel for the Union of India on how he sought to distinguish the Supreme Court’s ruling in S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway, which was relied upon by the Tribunal. It recorded the submission that “Mastan Bee was a case of negligence on the part of the sanctioning authority whereas, in the present case, the sanctioning authority had informed the respondent… that she was not entitled to Special Family Pension.”
Rejecting the argument, the Court stated, “We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission. The decision in Mastan Bee, in our view, squarely covers the case.” It further observed that “the Supreme Court, in the said decision, granted arrears of pension to the appellant before it from the date of death of her husband. We see no reason to take a different view in the present matter.”
The Bench recorded its dissatisfaction with the original pension authority’s decision, stating, “We are constrained to observe that the petitioner ought to have released Special Family Pension to the respondent immediately on the COI returning a finding that the death of Puran was attributable to military service.” It added, “The Pension Sanctioning Authority cannot sit in appeal over the decision of COI.”
The Court observed that the delay in re-approaching the authorities was not fatal, holding, “We do not regard the delay on the part of the respondent in re-approaching the petitioner for Special Family Pension to be fatal to her case.”
It further noted that when the widow reapplied in 2015, “her claim was not rejected on the ground of delay. She was advised to appeal to the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority allowed her appeal.”
Concluding its reasoning, the Bench stated, “The impugned order of the Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with law. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, especially given the limited parameters of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court ordered that the writ petition be “dismissed in limine.” It extended the time available to the petitioner for compliance with the Tribunal’s order, stating, “We… extend the time available to the petitioner to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal by a period of 12 weeks from today.” The Bench further directed that “failure to disburse payment to the respondent within the said period of 12 weeks shall visit the petitioner with further liability to interest at the rate of 10% per annum till the date of actual payment.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel; Mr. Dipanshu Sharma, Advocate with Major Anish Muralidhar, Army.
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Smt. Guddi Bisht
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9416-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 16268/2025
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla
