Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

2024 INSC 921

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant

Vs.

SAROJ DEVI — Respondent

( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No. 13730 of 2024 (Arising out of Diary No. 20250 of 2021)

Decided on : 03-12-2024

Soldier’s death from illness due to extreme climatic conditions near LC qualifies as a ‘Battle Casualty’, entitling widow to Liberalised Family Pension, per Supreme Court.

A. Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations.

B. Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

C. Sympathetic Consideration for Widows of Deceased Soldiers — The Court emphasizes the need for decision-making authorities to be sympathetic towards the widows of soldiers who die in harness, particularly in cases where the death is due to service-related conditions in challenging environments.

JUDGMENT

Abhay S. Oka, J. – Leave granted.

FACTUAL ASPECT

2. The respondent is the widow of late Naik Inderjeet Singh (for short, ‘the deceased’). The deceased was employed in the Indian Army on 27th February 1996. He was part of an Area Domination Patrol. The Area Domination Patrol was launched from Manjit Main to Rangwar Post for domination of the Rangwar gap in the proximity of the Line of Control (for short, ‘LC’) along the Anti Infiltration Obstacle System (for short, ‘AIOS’). A fence built by the Indian Army to prevent cross-border infiltration is known as AIOS. He complained of breathlessness during duty in extreme climatic conditions from 1.00 a.m. to 3.30 a.m. on 23rd January 2013. He was taken to the nearby Rangwar Post. The regimental medical officer found the condition of the deceased very critical. He could not be air-evacuated due to bad weather. Therefore, he was evacuated on foot. When he was taken to Chowkibal’s MI room, he was declared dead. The cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest. His death was initially classified as a ‘battle casualty’ but was later classified as a ‘physical casualty’ attributable to military service. The respondent was granted all terminal benefits, including a special family pension. As she was denied a Liberalised Family Pension (LFP), she filed an original application before the Armed Forces Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The respondent sought quashing of the order dated 10th February 2016, by which the benefit of LFP was denied to her. She prayed for a direction to grant her LFP with interest. The appellants opposed the original application. Ultimately, by the impugned judgment dated 23rd August 2019, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed that the respondent be granted LFP and ex-gratia lumpsum amount payable in case of battle casualties dying in harness. The present appeal takes exception to the said judgment and order.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Shri Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General, pointed out that LFP is governed by the order dated 31st January 2001 issued by the Director (Pensions) of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. He submitted that LFP is granted in case of death of an armed forces personnel under the circumstances mentioned in categories D and E of paragraph 4.1 of the order dated 31st January 2001. He submitted that, admittedly, category D does not apply to the deceased. He submitted that the case of the deceased is not covered by any of the clauses in category E. He submitted that as the deceased died due to cardiopulmonary arrest, his case was classified as a ‘physical casualty’ attributable to military service, and, therefore, the respondent was paid a special family pension. He relied on this Court’s decisions in the case of Kanchan Dua vs. Union of India and Anr.[1], and Radhika Devi v. Union of India and Ors.[2] He submitted that the present case is covered by both decisions. He submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is entirely erroneous.

4. Shri K Parameshwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, supported the impugned judgment by relying upon documents annexed to the counter affidavit.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

5. We must deal with the factual aspects. In paragraph 4.3 of the original application filed by the respondent, the following are the averments made:

In the reply filed to the original application, the appellants did not dispute the correctness of the averments made in paragraph 4.3. The appellants could not have disputed the said facts as they were also mentioned in the certificate issued by the Commanding Officer.

6. There is no dispute that the grant of LFP is governed by the order dated 31st January 2001 issued by the Director (Pensions). The said order applies to those who were in service as of 1st January 1996 or joined service thereafter. Clause 6.1 of the order dated 31st January 2001 reads thus:

7. In the present case, the respondent has not contended that the case of the deceased falls in category D. The tribunal accepted that the case falls in category E, which reads thus:

A perusal of the reply filed to the original application shows that the stand of the appellants is that clause (f) of category E is not applicable as the death of the deceased was attributable to military service and was classified as a ‘physical casualty’. It was contended that the death was not treated as a ‘battle casualty’. The stand taken is that the case of the deceased was not covered by clause (f) of category E as it was not a case of ‘battle casualty’ as the deceased died due to cardiopulmonary arrest. Therefore, the only question to be decided is whether the case will be covered by the category of ‘battle casualty’.

8. It is brought on record that initially, the Commanding Officer had categorised the death as a ‘battle casualty’, and later on, it was changed to a ‘physical casualty’. To the counter filed by the respondent, a copy of Army Order 1 of 2003 has been annexed as Annexure R-6. The circumstances for the classification of physical/battle casualties have been incorporated in Appendix ‘A’. In Appendix ‘A’, category 1 is of battle casualties. Clause (g) thereto reads thus:

9. Coming to the facts of the case, it is not disputed that on the date of the death, the deceased was posted with his battalion in Jammu and Kashmir as part of Operation Rakshak. He was part of an Area Domination Patrol for domination of the Rangwar gap in the proximity of LC. He was doing duty from 1.00 a.m. to 3.30 a.m. The certificate issued by the Commanding Officer records the following facts:

10. Thus, the death can be attributed to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions. Hence, as per clause 1 (g) of Appendix ‘A’ of the Army Order 1 of 2003, the case will fall in ‘Battle Casualties’. The reason is that the deceased was operating near LC in extreme climatic conditions. He was part of Operation Rakshak and was on duty near LC. The casualty caused by illness due to climatic conditions is covered by clause 1 (g). In this case, the respondent’s husband was a victim of illness caused by extreme climatic conditions. Therefore, the case of the deceased will fall in the category of ‘Battle Casualties’.

11. Clause (f) of category E is attracted when death arises as a result of war-like situations. The definition of death as a result of war-like situations is an inclusive definition, and the case cannot remain confined to subclauses (i) to (iii) of category E (f). In this case, the death has occurred as a result of a war-like situation prevailing near LC. Therefore, we concur with the view taken by the Tribunal that clause (f) of category E was applicable.

12. The decisions in the cases of Kanchan Dua vs. Union of India and Anr.[1] and Radhika Devi vs. Union of India and Ors.[2] have been decided on the basis of the peculiar facts of the cases. The same can have no application to the facts of this case. In the first case, the deceased was found dead in his room. In the second case, the death was not caused by extreme climatic conditions.

13. In our view, in a case like this, the respondent ought not to have been dragged to this Court, and the decision making authority of the appellants ought to have been sympathetic to the widow of a deceased soldier who died in harness. Therefore, we propose to impose costs quantified as Rs.50,000/-, which will be payable to the respondent.

14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The directions contained in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment shall be implemented within a maximum period of three months from today. We direct the appellants to pay the costs quantified as Rs.50,000/- to the respondent within a period of two months from today.