Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Khaliq Akhter vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No. 16
Regular Cause list
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 3352/2023
Khaliq Akhter
..... Appellant/petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr. Bilal Ahmad Malla, Advocate
V/s
Union of India and Ors.
..... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI with Ms. RahanaQayoom, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
(ORDER)
28.05.2025
01. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner seeks to challenge an order and Judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed
by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu ['AFT']
in transfer application No. 01/2020 (SWP No. 2006/2017) titled Mst. Khaliq
Akhter Vs. Union of India and Ors.
02. The impugned Judgment is challenged by the petitioner on multiple
grounds,however, during the course of arguments, it was pointed out to the
learned counsel for the petitioner that how could the petitioner claim the
pensionary benefits in respect of her deceased husband, who at the time of
his death was stated to be a Member of Armed Forces of the Union of India,
unless the dismissal, on account of his desertion, is specifically called in
question. In the writ petition, which was disposed of by the AFT in terms of
the impugned Judgment, the petitioner had simply sought a writ of
mandamus to direct the respondents herein to settle the pensionary claim and
other benefits of the petitioner within a time frame.
03. In the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, the claim of the
pensionary benefits of the petitioner was refuted on the ground that the
husband of the petitioner stood dismissed from Armed services as a deserter
and, therefore, the petitioner claiming to be his wife was not entitled to any
gratuity or pensionary benefits.
04. Ordinarily, in the face of aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, the
petitioner, if aggrieved, should have either amended the petition or filed a
fresh one after withdrawing the pending petition. This, however, has not
been done by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the AFT was correct
in arriving at a conclusion that in view of the dismissal of the husband of the
petitioner as deserter, the petitioner was not entitled to any gratuity or
pensionary benefits.
05. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed. We, however, provide that dismissal of this petition
shall not come in the way of the petitioner to challenge the dismissal of her
husband as a deserter and claim the pensionary benefits by filing a fresh
petition. We further direct that in the event a fresh petition is filed before the
AFT by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today, the
limitation shall not be pressed against the petitioner.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
28.05.2025
"Mohammad Yasin Dar"
