Punjab and Haryana High Court: While considering this petition wherein, wife (petitioner) of a dead soldier, challenged the order of Armed Forces Tribunal (the Tribunal) by which the benefit of Liberalized Family Pension was not granted to her, a Division Bench of Harsimran Singh Sethi* and Vikas Suri JJ., dismissed the petition holding that the death of the petitioner’s husband was due to a fight in drunken state with a colleague and not during any training exercise or live ammunition demonstration.
The petitioner contended that she was entitled for the benefit of Liberalized Family Pension by treating the death of her husband to have happened during the war as per Category E of Instructions dated 31-1-2001. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the benefit of Special Family Pension had already been granted to the petitioner and since her husband’s death happened at the hands of a colleague, after consumption of liquor, while he was posted in a unit and not during happening of any war or an operation, the petitioner was not entitled to Liberalized Family Pension.
Considering the facts and contentions, the Court perused Category E of the Instructions, and opined that though it is related to an act of violence/attack by extremists or anti-social elements, but the same would not cover a situation of private fighting amongst employees after being drunk. The Court explained that the claim of the wife could have arisen if there was a battle inoculation training exercise or demonstration with live ammunition, during which the death occurred; however, in the present case, the death of the petitioner’s husband was due to a fight in drunken state with his colleague and not during any training exercise. The Court thus dismissed the petition and declined to interfere in the Tribunal’s decision to refuse Liberalized Family Pension considering the circumstances of death.
[Mukeshvati v. Union of India, CWP No. 30134 of 2024 (O&M), decided on 25-8-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: R.S. Panghal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Rohit Verma, Advocate
