Soldier’s death due to high fever during casual leave attributable to service: Punjab and Haryana High Court

A soldier on casual leave remains on duty for all intents and purposes, making his death due to high fever during such period attributable to military service, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled.

The ruling came as a Division Bench court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India, while affirming the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order granting special family pension to the widow of a soldier who died of high fever while on 20 days’ leave.

Referring to the Disability Pension in Defence Service Rules, the Bench of Justice Harsimran Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri asserted that its provisions clearly stated that casual leave was to be treated as duty period.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the soldier was sanctioned leave from June 13, 2002 to July 2, 2002. He developed a high fever during the period before being admitted to hospital. The authorities denied the widow’s claim on the grounds that he was on casual leave at the time of his death.

The Tribunal considered all the relevant facts and the rules governing the service, which – among other things – said any officer on casual leave was to be treated on duty for all intents and purposes.

Rejecting the Union of India’s plea, the court observed: “Once the late husband of the respondent is to be treated as on duty during the time he availed casual leave and he suffered from high fever during the said period he availed the casual leave, the same has to be attributed to the military service keeping in view the exigencies of the service. It is not a case that the death of the employee is due to any negligence on his part or for any act which cannot be related even to the military service.”

The Bench also referred to the principle of law settled by the Supreme Court that “even when the officer is on leave, the facts are to be noticed whether the cause of death can be attributed to the military service or not”.

The Bench found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s decision. “Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the findings which have been recorded by the Tribunal to grant respondent No. 1 the benefit of special family pension by treating that the death of her husband was attributable to the military service while he was on duty, are correct.”

Finding no ground for any interference by the court, the Bench asserted that perversity was not pointed out in the impugned order “either on the basis of the facts or the settled principle of law”. As such, the writ petition was dismissed.