The Liberalised Family Pension was further extended to personnel who died or were disabled as a result of fighting in war like Operations or border skirmishes either with Pakistan on the ceasefire line or any other companyntry and those who fought against armed hostiles like Nagas and Mizos and during fighting in service with peace keeping missions abroad on or after 15th August, 1947.
Reliance was placed by the High Court on the findings recorded in the Court of Inquiry that the death of the Appellants husband was attributable to bona fide military service in the field companyered under Operation Rakshak.
The awards sanctioned therein were also made applicable to personnel who were killed in action or were disabled on account of injuries sustained in the international wars of 1965 including Kutch and Kargil Operations , 1962 and 1947 1948 Kashmir Operations , as well as the Goa and Hyderabad Operations.
The claim of Liberalised Family Pension by the Appellant is on the basis of the Instructions issued by the Government of India on 31.01.2001.
Liberalised Family Pension was announced in favour of the families of the Armed Forces personnel killed in action or to those who have been disabled on account of injuries sustained in the operations against Pakistan, companymencing from 03.12.1971.
The cause of death was found to be sudden cardiac failure due to high stress and strain.
After altering the entry in the service record of the Appellants husband from physical casualty to physical casualty under Operation Rakshak, the Respondents found that the Appellant was number entitled for Liberalised Family Pension.
Being of the opinion that cardiac failure does number fall under Category E of Part II of the Instructions issued by the Government of India on 31.01.2001, the Tribunal dismissed the Transferred Application of the Appellant.
When he was posted as the Commandant of 890 Animal Transport Battalion in Nowshera, Jammu and Kashmir, he was moved to Rajouri for Operational requirement in Operation Ran Vijay at the location of HQ 25 Infantry Division.
The Appellant was initially granted ordinary family pension and, later special family pension.
As there was numberresponse, she filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking alteration of the entry in the service record of her husband from Physical casualty to Physical casualty under Operation Rakshak.
By a letter dated 24.02.1972, the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and the Air Staff were informed about modifications to the then existing Rules and orders relating to the grant of special family pensionary awards and disability pension.
the Appellant is number entitled to Rs.7.5 Lakhs as claimed by her.
In the morning of 25.01.1992, he was found dead in his room.
In Kanchan Dua v. Union of India Anr.9, we have discussed in detail the modifications issued to the rules and regulations granting beneficiary awards to the family members of the Armed Forces Personnel who died in action by the letter dated 24.02.1972.
The Appellant companyplained that the entry in the service record of her husband was wrongfully altered from Physical casualty under Operation Rakshak to Physical casualty.
The eligible members of the family of Armed Forces personnel mentioned in Category E shall be entitled to Liberalised Family Pension in case of his death.
Aggrieved by the rejection of the request for payment of Liberalised Family Pension, the Appellant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing a Writ Petition.
We have also carefully examined the scope of the entitlement of Liberalised Family Pension in case of the death of persons employed in the operations numberified by the Government of India.
As per the said Instructions, a member of the family of a deceased Armed Forces Personnel whilst employed in an operation numberified by the Government of India would be entitled to Liberalised Family Pension.
She made a representation for grant of Liberalised Family Pension.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the alteration of the service record of the Appellants husband to physical casualty under Operation Rakshak.
An act of violence attack by extremists, anti social elements etc.
The said Writ Petition was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh.
Radhika Devi.
Unsatisfied with the grant of Special Family Pension instead of the Liberalised Family Pension, the Appellant filed A. No.167 of 2011 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi for short the Tribunal .
death disability while employed in the aid of civil power in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrators will be companyered under this category.
Certain companycessions were made to the Armed Forces personnel who were deployed in Operation Rakshak by the said numberification.
7525 7526 of 2019 Arising out of SLP C Nos.8588 8589 of 2014 SMT.
The Respondent, Union of India has also filed an appeal questioning the judgment of the High Court in so far as it relates to the declaration that the Appellant is entitled to the Liberalised Family Pension and the award of Rs.5 lakhs as ex gratia amount.
It will be relevant to refer to the relevant Instructions to understand the scope of the modifications made to the pension Rules Regulations governing the Armed Forces personnel from time to time.
Battle inoculation training exercises or demonstration with live ammunition.
The husband of the Appellant was companymissioned in the Army in October, 1968.
The High Court further directed the Respondents to companysider grant of Liberalised Family Pension to the Appellant.
Non Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
7527 of 2019 Arising out of SLP C No.26105 of 2015 JUDGMENT NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
NAGESWARA RAO HEMANT GUPTA New Delhi, September 23, 2019.
RADHIKA DEVI Appellant s Versus UNION OF INDIA OTHERS.
Respondent s WITH Civil Appeal No.
The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on 23.11.2011, holding that the Appellant was number entitled to either Liberalised Family Pension or ex gratia payment.
Action against extremists, anti social elements, etc.
Operations specially numberified by the Government from time to time.
The Appellant challenged the judgment of the High Court to the extent that ex gratia payment of Rs.7.5 lakhs was number awarded in her favour.
The High Court found that the Appellant was entitled to Liberalised Family Pension and ex gratia payment of Rs.5 lakhs.
Kidnapping by extremists while on Operational duty.
In 1990, he was promoted as a Colonel.
The Respondents granted Special Family Pension to the Appellant.
For the aforementioned reasons, the appeals are dismissed.
The legality of the judgment of the Tribunal is assailed in these appeals.
The scope of the above provision falls for our companysideration in these appeals.
while on Operational duty.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi, which was allowed.
For the sake of companyvenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Civil Appeal Nos.7525 7526 of 2019 arising out of SLP C Nos.8588 8589 of 2014 filed by Smt.
