HC declines Liberalised Family Pension plea in soldier’s death after drunken brawl

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the widow of a soldier—shot after fight with a colleague following liquor consumption—cannot be granted the benefit of Liberalised Family Pension.

Dismissing a petition filed against the Union of India and other respondents by the widow challenging the order of Armed Forces Tribunal’s Regional Bench in Chandigarh, the Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri held that such circumstances did not fall under relevant instructions related to “an act of violence/attack by extremists, anti-social elements, etc.”

“As per the respondent, there was a fight between the petitioner’s husband and another colleague after consumption of liquor during which fight, he was shot by the said colleague which resulted into his death. The clause under which the petitioner is trying to bring her case to get the Liberalised Family Pension says `an act of violence/attack by extremists, anti-social elements, etc. Its bare perusal would show that though the same relates to an act of violence/attack by extremists or anti-social elements, the same will not cover a situation of a private fight amongst employees after being drunk,” the Bench asserted.

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances once, the court asserted that the petitioner had already been granted the benefit of Special Family Pension. The circumstances under which her husband died could not be treated to have been covered under the clause so as to grant her the benefit as is being claimed by her of Liberalised Family Pension, as is being claimed by her,” the court observed.

The Bench also rejected the plea that the case could be covered under the provisions of the January 30, 2001, instructions dealing with deaths during “battle inoculation training exercises or demonstration with live ammunition.”

The Bench asserted: “A bare perusal 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.”

The court observed that the Union of India had already extended the benefit of Special Family Pension to the petitioner. “No ground is made out for any interference by this court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed,” the Bench concluded.