[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Of India Through Its Secretary vs Asha Rani on 17 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:396-DB
Sr. No. 12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP (C) No. 2680/2025
Pronounced on : 17.02.2026
Uploaded on : 18.02.2026
1. Union of India through its Secretary, .....Petitioner(s)
Ministry of Defence, South Block, New-Delhi-110011.
2. The Chief of Army Staff through AGs Branch,
IHQ of MoD (Army),
Additional Directorate General Personnel Services, DHQ,
PO New Delhi-110011.
3. The Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions),
Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211014.
4. The Officer-in-Charge Records,
Records the Punjab Regiment, PIN 908 761, C/o 56 APO.
Through :- Mr. Rohan Nanda, CGSC
v/s
Asha Rani, W/o No. 2474877W, .....Respondent(s)
Late Hav Subash Singh SM,
R/o Village Kharute, PO Kharute, Tehsil Kathua,
District Kathua (J&K).
Through :- Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate
Mr. B S Sarmal, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
1 7. 0 2. 2 0 2 6
1. The order and judgment dated 24.04.2023, passed by the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu ["the
Tribunal"] in OA No. 713 of 2019, titled "Smt. Asha Rani Vs. The
Union of India & Ors.", is a subject matter of challenge in this
petition, filed by the Union of India under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA of
the respondent and has held her entitled to Special Family Pension
2026:JKLHC-JMU:396-DB
on account of death of her husband. The arrears to be paid to the
respondent have been restricted to three years preceding the date of
filing of the OA.
2. The judgment impugned is challenged by the petitioners, primarily
on the ground that, the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that
despite the communication dated 06.05.2019, issued to the
respondent, requesting her to provide the medical record pertaining
to the death of her husband, no record was produced before the
petitioners to take a view in the matter.
3. Having hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the material available on record, we find that the Special Family
Pension is governed by Regulation 213 of Pension Regulations for
the Army, 1961 (Part-I). For facility of reference, Para 213 is
reproduced as under:
"Special Family Pension
213..... A special family pension may be granted to the
family of an individual if his death was due to or hastened
by
(a) A wound, injury or disease which was attributable to
military service,
OR
(b) The aggravation by military service of a wound, injury
or disease, which existed before or arose during military
service."
From reading of Para 213 (supra), it becomes abundantly
clear that the family member of an individual would be entitled to
Special Family Pension only if his death was due to or hastened by
wound, injury or disease which was attributable to Military service
2026:JKLHC-JMU:396-DB
or aggravation by Military service of such wound, injury or disease
which existed before or arose during Military service lead to the
death of an individual.
4. It is true that in terms of Para 8 (b) of the Entitlement Rules to
Casualty Pensionary Awards 2008, where an individual is in receipt
of a disability pension and dies within a period of 7 years from his
release/retirement. It shall be presumed that he had died of the
disease for which he was granted disability pension at the time of
his release/retirement.
5. In the instant case, the husband of the respondent died after 12
years from the date of discharge from service. The respondent
would have been entitled to Special Family Pension, only if the
death of her husband was a result of disability/disease for which he
was granted disability pension at the time of his release/reward. It is
with a view to determining this aspect, the petitioners had requested
the respondent to provide the medical record. It seems that because
of inability of the respondent to produce the relevant medical record
before the authorities, a decision in the matter could not be taken.
6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the issue needs to be
considered by the medical authority in light of the medical record
which the respondent is obliged to produce before the petitioners.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondent to place the entire record pertaining
to the death of her husband before the petitioners within a
period of two weeks from today. On receipt of the medical record,
the competent authority of the petitioners shall consider the same
2026:JKLHC-JMU:396-DB
and in case it is found that the husband of the respondent has died
of the disease/disability for which he was granted the disability
pension, the respondent would be held entitled to the Special
Family Pension. Needless to say that such Special Family Pension
shall be payable to the respondent w.e.f. 31.12.2015 along with
arrears restricted to three years preceding the date of filing of the
OA.
8. The judgment passed by the Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid
extent only.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
17.02.2026
Manan
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
