The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a widow’s entitlement to liberalised family pension for her husband’s death while aiding in a natural calamity. But the court did not interfere with an order restricting the arrears of the pension to three years before the filing of her petition, due to a significant delay in initiating the claim.
The matter was placed before the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma after the petitioner challenged an order by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) that limited the payment of arrears to three years preceding her application date. The Bench was told that her husband, an ex-Naik, was killed in 2009 while assisting military and civil authorities to extinguish a forest fire near the Indo-China border. He was posthumously declared a “battle casualty,” which entitled families to liberalised family pension under category ‘D’ as per government policy for personnel killed during operational duties.
The AFT initially ruled in favour of the petitioner, allowing liberalised family pension but limiting the arrears due to the delayed filing. The petitioner contested the limitation, seeking full arrears. The Union of India argued that the petition should have been filed in the Himachal Pradesh High Court, where the cause of action arose.
The Bench rejected the jurisdictional objection, noting that the impugned order originated from the AFT in Chandigarh, giving the Punjab and Haryana High Court authority over the matter. The court observed the order was issued by AFT in Chandigarh and not by a circuit Bench temporarily held in Shimla. If the order had been made while the AFT regional bench was sitting in Shimla, it might have been appropriate to challenge it in the Himachal Pradesh High Court. But since the proceedings were conducted in Chandigarh, the jurisdiction to hear this case rightly belonged to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which has its principal seat in Chandigarh.
On the merits, the court reviewed government policies regarding death and disability benefits. The petitioner argued that her husband’s death should be classified under category ‘E’ for fatalities in direct operational circumstances, rather than category ‘D.’ However, the court dismissed this claim, affirming the AFT’s classification under category ‘D,’ which applies to personnel fatalities during assistance in civil matters like natural