Smt. Bashiram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 961 Del

JUDGMENT

Gita Mittal, J.

1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the mother of a deceased soldier late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan seeking quashing of orders dated 28th March, 2002 and 14th March, 2002 passed by the Army Group Insurance Scheme(Respondent no. 5 in the present petition) informing her that the insurance benefits available to her son, the deceased soldier, would be released in favor of his widow in the event that the petitioner was unable to produce any orders in her favor of stay from a court of law.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly stated are that the late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan was married to one Smt. Murshida Parveen(Respondent No. 6) on 19th June, 2000 as per Muslim law and customs. Late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan was enrolled in the Indian Army on the 27th July, 1998 having been allotted service no. 2845517 and was posted with 15 Rajputana Rifles. Late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan had proceeded for his leave on the 20th August, 2001. According to the petitioner, the relations of the deceased with respondent no. 6 were estranged and that she took her husband to her parents house in Village Budhana on the 27th September, 2001. It is further alleged that late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan died that night after taking his dinner and that the death was in suspicious circumstances. Despite intimation to the police and representations(under Section 26 of the Army Act) to the respondents no. 1-5, they were not granting or releasing the terminal benefits to which heirs of late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan was entitled. These benefits included the ordinary family pension payable by respondent nos. 1 to 4 and the Army Group Insurance payable by respondent no. 5. On the contrary the respondent no. 5 vide letter dated 28th March, 2002 had informed the petitioner to produce a stay order from a court of law failing which the entire benefits would be released in favor of the widow. This was reiterated in its letter dated 14th May, 2002. It is further submitted that on 4th March, 2002 a female child was born from the wedlock of late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan and Smt. Murshida Parveen, respondent no. 6. The petitioner claims that as she was the mother of the deceased and that the death of late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan had taken place in suspicious circumstances, therefore, the widow was not entitled to the family pension or the army group insurance and that the petitioner was entitled to the same. It is also contended that the parents of the deceased were dependent on him and for this reason as well they were entitled to grant and disbursement of the terminal benefits in their favor.

3. The respondent no. 6 Murshida Parveen has vehementally disputed the factual narration of facts. Apart from reliance on the nominations made by her deceased husband late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan and the rules applicable to grant of family pension as well as the policy under which group insurances was awarded, it is contended by her that late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan had not expired because of any fault on her part. It has been averred that on 27th September, 2001, late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan had gone to visit his cousin brother one Sh. Hazi Iqbal who was living in Village Shahpur. Some incident took place while the deceased was at his cousin's house and they were taking meals. It is stated by her that her father was informed about late Sh. Kadar Khan having been taken ill by the aforesaid Sh. Hazi Iqbal at about 11.45 p.m. in the night. The respondent no. 6 Along with her father had rushed to the Village Shahpur on getting the message but had accosted the said Sh. Iqbal and his mother with some other persons as well as her husband enroute only. At their instance, the respondent no. 6 and her father were asked to accompany them to Village Tikri to which late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan belongs on the pretext that the parents of the deceased would accompany the party to the hospital. It was only after they reached the family home at Village Tikri that the respondent no. 6 was told that Late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan had expired at Village Shahpur itself. The respondent no. 6 further submitted that no allegations were made by Sh. Jamaluddin, father of late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan or his brother in their communications dated 29th September, 2001 & 30th September, 2001 to the police.

4. According to the respondent no. 6 she continued to cohabit at the residence of her husband and the petitioner even after his death and that she had no intention whatsoever of leaving the matrimonial home. According to her, the petitioner and the other family members subjected her to unbearable torture and forced her to leave the matrimonial home. It is further stated by her that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and was forced to leave the matrimonial house by her in-laws. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner and her relatives threatened the respondent no. 6 largely because they wanted to grab the terminal benefits to which she became entitled upon his death. They even wanted the respondent no. 6 to release the pensionary benefits in favor of the petitioner.

5. The respondent no. 6 further contends that a court of inquiry was conducted into the cause of death of late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan by the respondents. Statement of Sh. Jamaluddin(father of the deceased) and Sh. Khalil(brother of late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan) were recorded on the 13th December, 2001. The statement of the respondent no. 6 was recorded on 14th December, 2001 Along with the statement of her father as well as that of Sh. Hazi Iqbal. About 4-5 days thereafter statement of Smt. Hanifa(aunt of the deceased) was also recorded. The report submitted clearly established that there was nothing suspicious with regard to the cause of death of late Sh. Kadar Khan. According to the respondent no. 6, the allegations made by his mother alone after the death of the soldier were wholly without basis and have been made with the malafide intention of usurping his terminal benefits.

6. So far as the dependency of the petitioner on her son is concerned, it has been contended by respondent no. 6 that the petitioner was not dependent upon late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan in any manner whatsoever. According to the respondent no. 6, in addition to the deceased, the petitioner has four other sons and they all are earning handsomely. It has been alleged that there are five shops in the name of Sh. Jamaluddin(husband of the petitioner) out of which two have been rented whereas three others are being used for business purpose by the husband and two sons of the petitioner. According to the respondent no. 6, one other son of the petitioner is employed in the Indian Army in the capacity of Hav clerk with 19 Rajputana Rifles. It is contended that the petitioner is well maintained by her husband and her four sons and has no need of any further income. The respondent no. 6 contends that she is a widow supporting an infant daughter posthumously born on 4th March, 2002 and that the respondent no. 6 and her daughter are surviving upon the charity of her parents.

7. The respondent no. 6 has further placed reliance on the applicable rules and the nominations made by the deceased in her favor and has stated that the claim made by the petitioner is wholly invalid and deserves to be rejected.

8. The respondent nos. 1-4 as well as the respondent no. 5 have urged that their actions are based on the applicable rules as well as the scheme of grant of pension and the policy governing award and disbursement under the Army Group Insurance Scheme. They rely on the nominations made by the deceased available in their records to content that the claim of the petitioner is misconceived. Respondent nos. 1-4 have also drawn our attention to the report and opinion of the Court of Inquiry and the proceedings of the Branch Recruiting Office. The original records relating to the matter has been produced before us and we have also been taken through the relevant provisions of the Pension Regulations for Army, 1961.

9. The questions which arise for consideration in the present writ petition may be set out as hereunder :-

I. Whether the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 permit division of the ordinary family pension between a mother and widow of a deceased soldier.

II. Whether the Army Group Insurance Scheme permits division of the admissible Group Insurance between a mother and widow of a deceased soldier.

III. In the event of the answer to the contentions at serial number I & II above being in the affirmative, then in such eventuality and as a corollary we are required to decide as to what would be the consequence and effect of a nomination(s) made by a deceased soldier in respect of the ordinary family pension and under the Army Group Insurance Scheme.

10. The award and disbursement of pension, gratuity and other allowances to army personnel are governed by the provisions of the Pension Regulations For The Army, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Pension Regulations for brevity.

11. Our attention has been drawn to Army Instructions 51/1980 also governing the grant of family pension. This instruction supercedes all existing orders on the subject with regard to family pensionary benefits and directs that its provisions would be applicable to the families of the armed forces personnel who were in service on 1st January, 1964 or joined service thereafter but died while in service. The relevant portions of the Army Instruction 51/1980 are extracted below:-

"6. Family for the purpose of Family Pension means :

(i) Wife/Husband provided the marriage took place before retirement and also judicially separated wife/husband if the judicial separation was granted not on ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery.

(ii) Sons below the age of 25 years.

(iii) Unmarried daughters below the age of 25 years.

(iv) Sons and daughters adopted legally up to the age limit (ii) and (iii) above.

Note : - Sons or daughters born after retirement and also a posthumous child are entitled to Family pension.

7. The pension will be admissible : -

(a) To a widow or widower up to the date; of death or dis-qualification whichever is earlier;

(b) to a son until he attains the age of 25 years

(c) to an unmarried daughter until she attains the age of 25 years or marriage whichever is earlier.

Provided that if a son or daughter is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years the ordinary family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life(MOD letter No. A/49601/AG/PS4(e)/3363/B/D(Pens/serv) dated 7/8/87.)

8. The Family Pension 1964 is payable to only one member of the family at a time except in cases where it is payable to more widows than one or where it is payable to twin children. It is first payable to the widow/widower till the date of her/his death or re-marriage whichever is earlier and thereafter to children in the order of priority."

12. According to army instruction 51/1980 the mother is not included in the members of the family of the deceased. An unmarried daughter would be entitled to the family pension only upon disqualification of the widow of the deceased and his son.

13. The relevant regulations of the Pension Regulations which are applicable in the instant case read as under :-

"216. The following members of the family of a deceased individual shall be viewed as eligible for the grant of a special family pension, provided that they are otherwise qualified :-

(a) widow/widower lawfully married. It includes a widow who was married after individuals release/retirement/discharge/invalidment.

(b) Son actual and legitimate/including validly adopted.

(c) Daughter, actual and ligitimate/(including validly adopted).

(d) Father.

(e) Mother.

(f) Brother.

(g) Sister.

219. A relative specified in Regulation 216 shall be eligible for the grant of family pension, provided:

General

(i) he or she is not in receipt of another pension from Government.

(ii) he or she is not employed under Government.

Widow

(iii) a widow has not remarried.

This condition shall not apply to a widow who remarried her deceased husband's brother and continues to live a communal life with and/or contributes to the support of the other living eligible heirs.

Son

(iv) a son is below the age of 25 years.

Daughter

(v) a daughter until she attains the age of 25 years or marriage whichever is earlier.

Parents

Second life Awards (special family Pension) shall be admissible to the parent (s) of the deceased and in the absence of the parents, eligible brother and sisters of the deceased of the rate of 50% of the special family pension determined vide Regulation 227(a), if the claimants was/were largely dependent on the deceased for support and is/are in pecuniary need.

Mother

(vi) a mother who is a widow at the time of her son's death or who becomes a widow thereafter, has not remarried.

If she had remarried before her son's death, she shall remain eligible for the special family pension, unless she again becomes a widow and remarries.

Brother/Sister

(vii) The brothers/sister were largely dependent on the deceased for support and are in pecuniary need.

(viii) In the case of brother he has not completed the age of 25 years.

(ix) In the case of sister, she has not completed the age of 25 years or has not married.

To whom the original grant of family pension is made

220. (a) Where there is a nomination : -

(i) If on the date on which the pension sanctioning authority decides that the claim to family pension is admissible the nominated heir is alive and eligible, the pension shall be granted to him or her.

(ii) If on the date referred to above, the nominated heir is dead or disqualified, the pension shall be granted to the heir who stands highest in the list of living heirs specified in Regulation 216 and is eligible under Regulation 219.

(iii) If an heir(other than the widow) who is nominated for the family pension waives his or her claim in favor of the widow, the pensions hall be granted to her, provided she is eligible on the date referred to at sub-clause (i) above.

(iv) xxx

(v) xxx

Division of family pension between eligible heirs

228.(a) If the recipient of family pension refuses to contribute proportionately towards the support of other eligible heirs in the family who were dependent on the deceased or if the pension is in the name of a child but is not devoted to the interest of the family generally, a competent authority may, on the basis of the verification/investigation report rendered by the Zila Sainik Board Recruiting Organisation and attested or countersigned by any one of the under mentioned local civil authorities, divide, at his discretion, the special family pension among the eligible heirs of the deceased :-

(a) Sarpanch of a village

(b) Any serving or retired Gazetted Officer, civil or military, including a JCO

(c) Sub Postmaster

(d) Qanungo or patwari

(e) Sub Inspector of Police

(f) A member of Municipal Corporation or committee or Zilla Parishad/District Board.

(g) Panchayat President/Village Munsif/Patel/Village Officer/Panchayat Executive Officer.

(h) M.P. /M.L.A./Member of Legislative Council

(i) Oath Commissioner/Notary Public"

14. Bare reading of the regulations shows that the order of priority in which pension is payable is set out in unambiguous terms . In the case of personnel below officer rank, pension is payable to :

(i) a nominated heir and on her/his disqualification or death to the other member, one at a time, as per priority vide Regulation 216.

(ii) In the absence of nomination, to the widow and on her disqualification or death to the eligible child. In case there is no widow/widower the eligible child, it shall be paid to the father and in his absence to the mother.

15. Examination of the above rule position would also show that the respondent no. 6 being the widow is the eligible heir as per the Army Instructions 51/1980 as well as, as per Regulation 216. The Army Instructions 51/1980 and the Rule position do not envisage division of the family pension even between eligible legal heirs. Pension regulations postulate devolution of pension strictly in accordance with the priorities set out in the Regulations. The mother of a deceased army personnel has been listed at serial no. "e" i.e. at the fifth position of priority, whereas the widow has been placed at the top.

16. The records produced before us show that the deceased was required to submit a kindred role and the names of his heirs to the respondent nos. 1 to 4. The deceased had unequivocally cited his wife i.e. the respondent no. 6 to be his nominee entitled to all benefits upon his demise. Therefore the widow was also the sole nominee of the deceased late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan on the date the pension sanctioning authority was deciding the admissibility to the claim to family pension of his heirs.

Family pension cannot legally be divided between even the eligible legal heirs. The widow, respondent no. 6, was therefore an eligible and duly nominated heir and was clearly exclusively entitled to the grant and disbursement of the family pension.

17. The respondent no. 1-4 have also placed before us the letter dated 17th December, 2002 from the office of the PCDA(P) Allahabad addressed to the in charge of the Records of the Rajputana Rifles. This letter written during the pendency of the present writ petition clearly stated that there was no rule permitting division of ordinary family pension and that only special family pension could be divided in terms of Regulations no. 228 of the Pension Regulations For The Army if its governing conditions are fulfillled. The respondents have also placed on record copy of a letter dated 25th May, 1992 issued by the Ministry of defense, Government of India to the Chief of the Army, Naval and Air staff deciding the issue relating to survival of a deceased by more than one eligible widow as well as the devolution of the ordinary family pension upon death of a widow to her eligible child. The letter dated 25th May, 1992 is of no relevance to the instant case in as much as the present case relates to a dispute between a widow and a mother for award of family pension.

18. So far as the contentions of the petitioner with regard to her dependency is concerned, it becomes necessary to refer to the position set out in the counter affidavit with regard to the other members of the petitioner's family and their employment. It is not the petitioner's case that her relations with any of her family members are estranged. Even the petitioner's husband has not made any claim of dependency on the deceased and does not support the petitioner at all in her allegations or claims against either respondent no. 6 or the respondent nos. 1 to 5. We are therefore unable to place any reliance on the vague assertion of the petitioner that she Along with her husband remained dependent upon the deceased late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan. Apart from her husband Sh. Jamaluddin who is stated to be owning five shops and running his own business, the petitioner has the following family members whose employment has been stated against their names :-

i) Sh. Abdul Hamid(son) - Cloth merchant

ii) Sh. Zamil(son) - Mason

iii) Sh. Khalil(son) - Carpentor

iv) Sh. Salim Khan(son) - Employed in Indian Army in the capacity of Hav. Clerk with 19 Rajputana Rifles.

Therefore the contention of dependency of the petitioner who is merely attempting to build a case for award of the family pension, despite the above rule position, is only to be noticed to be rejected outright.

19. Having held that the petitioner is not entitled to either the entire family pension or any divided portion, we may consider the aspect with regard to the effect of a nomination made by the deceased soldier with regard to entitlement to his pension on the award and disbursement of family pension here. So far as the question of nomination is concerned, Regulation 220 of the afore stated Pension Regulations clearly provides that in the event of the nominated heir being alive and eligible on the date the pension sanctioning authority decides that the claim to family pension is admissible, the pension shall be granted to such nominated heir.

20. In the instant case, the respondent no. 6 being the widow is the eligible heir as per the Army Instruction 51/1980 as well as pr regulation 216. The widow was also the nominee of the deceased late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan on the date the pension sanctioning authority was deciding the admissibility to the claim to family pension. For this reason as well the widow was therefore an eligible and duly nominated heir and was clearly exclusively entitled to the grant and disbursement of the ordinary family pension.

21. The petitioner has based her case on yet another plank. The Board Recruiting Organisation had effected an investigation and had submitted a report dated 22nd August, 2002 apart from the court of inquiry. Its report does not support the petitioner's allegations with regards to the cause of death of the jawan. However in its report of 22nd August, 2002, it had recommended that taking into consideration the financial situ of the two parties, a portion of the pension be awarded to the parents of the deceased i.e. 60% to the widow and 40% to the parents. The petitioner, placing reliance on Regulation 228, submits that these recommendations of the Board are binding on the respondents and the pension has to be proportionately divided between the petitioner and respondent no. 6.

22. On the other hand, according to the respondent no. 6, the recommendations of the Board Recruiting Organisation are without jurisdiction in as much as the same is contrary to the provisions of the applicable pension regulations. The same is based on findings with regard to the financial situ of the petitioner which are factually incorrect.

23. We have held that the ordinary family pension cannot be legally divided. The Board Recruiting Organisation itself found that the widow was not suffering any disqualification for award of the family pension. In this view of the matter, the recommendations made by the Board Recruiting Organisation for division of the pension between the widow and the mother are contrary to the regulations and are without jurisdiction and cannot be given effect to. The same are of no consequence and effect in the instant case.

24. The petitioner is further seeking entitlement to award special family pension on the ground that the death of late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan occurred in suspicious circumstances attributable to military service entitling his heirs including the petitioner to special family pension.

In this behalf, a court of inquiry was initiated by the respondents to investigate into the circumstances under which Rfn. Kadar Khan died. The Court of Inquiry was presided over by Lt. Col. A.K. Yadav, Commanding Officer, 82, UP BN NCC, Muzaffarnagar. The relevant extract of the inquiry has been placed before us. We are informed that the statements of witnesses were even recorded. Sh. Jamaluddin, father of the deceased and Sh. Khalil, brother of the deceased had appeared before the inquiry. As per the statements of these two witnesses late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan was leading a happy married life. Sh. Jamaluddin, father of the deceased had categorically said that he did not want to blame anyone for the death of his son. Sh. Khalil, brother of the deceased had stated that the doctor was the right person to ascertain the cause of death. The report of the post mortem conducted on the body of the deceased was also proved on record. According to the postmortem report there was no external injury and that the late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan had died due to asphyxia suffocation. It was further stated that even the police had closed the case as there was no foul play as per the postmortem report. Accordingly the court had opined as hereunder :-

"1. The court is of the opinion that no. 2894517P Late (Rfn) Kadir Khan died due to asphyxia suffocation on natural process which is very rare and hence there is no foul play and no one is to be blamed for the death.

2. The court also recommends that late (Rfn) Kadir Khan's child conceived by his wife about six month ago be taken care of while making payment of his savings and other monetary benefits as deemed.(witness no. 1, 2 & 5)."

25. It is apparent that none of the other family members of the deceased have supported the allegations made by the petitioner. Our attention has been drawn to the information given by Sh. Jamaluddin father of the deceased to the in charge Police, Doghat on 27th September, 2001 that his son had gone to visit his cousin at Village Shahpur and at about 9 p.m., after having his meals had vommitted on account of the blockage of his wind pipe with the food at that time, Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan had expired. Again on 30th September, 2001, he had addressed a letter to this effect to the police. Admittedly Sh. Kadar Khan had expired at Village Shahpur at the residence of his cousin Sh. Iqbal. Copy of the complaint lodged by Sh. Salil Khan, brother of the deceased on the 29th September, 2001 and the letter dated 30th September, 2001 written by Sh. Jamaluddin, father of the deceased have been placed on record Along with translations. Perusal, thereof, shows that there was no allegation whatsoever by the family of the deceased Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan with regard to the circumstances in which he had expired nor any kind of suspicion of involvement of the respondent no. 6 in the matter. On the contrary, Sh. Jamaluddin had clearly written to the police on 30th September, 2001 that no responsibility could be fastened on anybody for the death of late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan and that he also did not want any action in this regard. Sh. Jamaluddin had stated that there was no injury mark on the body of his son and that his son had expired at the residence of his cousin. There is no material on record to show that there was anything suspicious in the circumstance leading to the death of the Rfn. Kadar Khan. There are no circumstances attributable to his military service which resulted in his death.

26. As such the heirs of the petitioner are not entitled to any Special Family Pension.

27. In addition to the claim to pension the petitioner(s), is seeking entitlement to the group insurance admissible to army personnel under the Army Group Insurance Scheme. This Scheme is administered and controlled by the respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 5 has placed before us the entire Scheme as well as the provisions for nomination under the Army Group Insurance Scheme which was notified vide a letter dated 30th March, 1998 issued by the Army Group Insurance.

28. The Army Group Insurance Scheme has been carved out to cater for the socio-economic needs of the army personnel and their families. The army group insurance for army personnel was introduced with effect from 1st January, 1976 under the authority of the Government of India, Ministry of defense letter no. P-C no. A/37586/AG/PC & JEC/9302/D (Pay/Services) dated 15th December, 1975. Further improvements have been made by enhancing the insurance cover and benefits while in service and upon retirement. One of the main objects of the scheme is to provide insurance benefits specially to the family of army personnel who may die while in service. Army order 23/2002/AGI- Group Insurance Scheme has been issued to lay down the guidelines for claiming various benefits from the army group insurance fund by serving and retired army personnel or their kin. The scheme covers JCOs/ORs including recruits of army amongst other army personnel. The subscription to the fund is effected by monthly compulsory deductions in the case of commissioned officers and subscriptions are effected by JCOs/Other Ranks through their IRLA maintained by CDA(O) and PAO(OR) respectively which are remitted to the Army Group Insurance Fund every month.

29. It is obligatory for all ranks to make a nomination for the Army Group Insurance Scheme so that the beneficiaries as per the Army Group Insurance Fund rules are not deprived of the benefits in the event of the unfortunate death of a member. As per para 9 of AO 23/2002 AGI and Army Group Insurance Scheme, the nomination is required to be made on a form prescribed as per Appendix "A" to the army order and confers the right to receive the benefits under the Army Group Insurance Scheme only on the person who has been named as the nominee upon death of the personnel.

30. Para 11 of the Army Order 23/2002/AGI dealing with nomination is set out hereunder :-

"11. Married personnel - The individual is required to make a fresh nomination in the name of his wife. Even if he has not made nomination in the name of his wife, his earlier nomination automatically becomes null and void when the individual gets married and the widow automatically becomes the nominee to receive death benefits. However, the married member also has the option if he so desires to nominate his mother/father/minor brothers/unmarried sisters to receive a total share not exceeding 25 per cent of the total AGIF benefits. The nomination for the balance share of 75 per cent will have to be in the name of wife and children including step and legally adopted children. In case a member desires to nominate his wife and children to receive 100 per cent of AGI benefits, he may do so."

31. In the instant case the deceased was enrolled into the Indian Army allegedly on the 27th July, 1998 and had expired on the 27th September, 2001. A nomination was made by the deceased under the army group insurance scheme in vogue at the relevant time which was covered by the instructions contained in the letter no. A/56271/03/AG/Ins(Coord) dated 30th March, 1998 issued by Retired Brig. J.S. Kanwar, Director Adm. & Secy. from Army Group Insurance Fund, the relevant paras whereof are set out hereunder ;-

"1. On joining the Army, every AGI member is required to make a nomination when he/she joins the AGI scheme, nominating the person/persons to receive the death benefit in the event of the insurance claim being invoked. The Army Order 5/S/78 amended vide AO 33/81 lays down the procedure for nomination as under :-

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) On Getting Married . The individual is required to make a fresh nomination in the name of his wife. Even if he has not made nomination in the name of his wife, his earlier nomination automatically becomes null and void when the individual gets married and the widow automatically becomes the nominee to receive death benefits.

2. In the event of death of a member while in service; apart from the AGI benefits, a widow/beneficiary is entitled to DSOP/AFPP Fund balance, Pension/Special Family Pension and Gratuity. In addition, widow is also entitled to an ex-gratia grant in case of death in war like conditions or on internal Security duties from the Central Government and in some cases the State Governments also. Thus overall benefits to which a widow is entitled have increased manifold.

3. xxx xxx xxx

4. xxx xxx xxx

5. Accordingly the Board of Governors Army Group Insurance Fund during its Thirty Second meeting held on 22nd October, 1997 has considered and approved certain modifications to the AGI Nomination Rules, which are as follows :-

(a) Married Personnel other than Lady Members. As per the revised AGI Nomination Policy applicable with effect from 22nd October, 1997, a married member, if he so desires may nominate his mother/father/minor brothers/unmarried sisters to receive a total share not exceeding 25 per cent of the total AGI benefits. The nomination for the balance share of minimum 75 per cent will have to be in the name of spouse and children only. In case a member desires to nominate his wife and children to receive 100 per cent of AGI benefits, he may do so.

6. There is no change to the other existing rules and regulations for AGI nomination. A revised AGI Nomination Form for married individuals incorporating the said provisions is attached. It should be ensured that the nomination is strictly made within the parameters of above revised policy. The Commanders at all levels should impress upon all ranks with due diligence that the available option be exercised with discretion keeping in mind their socio-economic responsibility towards the family members."

32. The army group insurance benefits paid by the Army Group Insurance Scheme are in addition to the scheme for grant of pension, disability pension and other service benefits paid by the Chief Controller of defense Accounts(pension).

33. According to the respondent no. 5 the deceased Kadar Khan had made nomination of 100% of the benefits of the Army Group Insurance Scheme admissible to him in favor of his wife Smt. Murshida Parveen in the event of his demise. He had specifically submitted that only in the eventuality of his wife/nominee predeceasing him or after his death but before receipt of the group insurance scheme benefits, the right conferred by him (Ex-Ffn. Kadar Khan) upon Smt. Murshida Parveen would pass on to his mother Smt. Bashiran, the present petitioner.

34. Such later eventuality has not taken place in the instant case. The copy of the nomination made by the deceased has been placed on record and has been perused by us. The same supports the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6.

35. Upon examination of the entire conspectus of facts emerging on record coupled with the scheme of granting of the group insurance benefit, we have no hesitation in holding that the respondent no. 6 is the sole and exclusive beneficiary of the Army Group Insurance Scheme and is entitled to the entire benefits of the scheme to the exclusion of other relatives and heirs of late Ex-Rfn. Kadar Khan. According to respondent no. 5, in case a nomination is defective or not valid, the benefits of the army group insurance scheme are given entirely to the surviving spouse of a deceased army personnel.

36. On the behalf of the petitioner a last submission was made placing reliance on a circular dated 4th November, 1999 submitting that a married army personnel was given the option, if he so desired to nominate amongst others, his mother to receive a total share not exceeding 25% of the total Army Group Insurance benefits.

37. However, perusal of this circular would show it merely gave the army personnel an option of nominating persons other than their spouses as their nominees. The circular was merely in the nature of piece of advice to officers and other senior officers to disseminate this information among the troops and advise concerned army personnel about the importance of filling up their nomination form correctly. The intention and purpose of this circular was to publicise such information so as to ameliorate the problems of aged parents and to avoid litigation within the family.

38. In the instant case we have no reason to believe that the petitioner was dependent on the deceased soldier. The deceased admittedly did not think it fit to make a nomination of his army group insurance benefits in favor of his mother. The reliance placed on this circular dated 4th November, 1999, therefore, is of no benefit or avail.

39. The contention of the petitioner that her representations to the army authorities remain undecided is factually incorrect in as much as the petitioner has been representing for grant of the afore stated terminal benefits. The respondents have thought it fit not to grant the same in favor of the petitioner and have communicated the same to her.

40. It is unfortunate that the terminal benefits have become the real bone of contention between the widow and the relatives of the deceased. It may be noticed that the respondent no. 6 is admittedly supporting a minor child born posthumously to the deceased sepoy and that the respondent no. 6 has no means of livelihood.

In view of the facts emerging on record and the rule position set out above, we find no merit in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed.