Supreme Court clarifies scope of Liberalized Family Pension for Armed Forces personnel in non-combat deaths: Kanchan Dua vs. Union of India (23 September 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2019

Citation: Civil Appeal Nos.7459-7460 of 2010, INSC: 2019: 1026

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can the family of a soldier who dies of a heart attack while serving in a notified operation receive the same enhanced pension benefits as those who die in combat? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in Kanchan Dua vs. Union of India, clarifying the scope of “Liberalized Family Pension” for Armed Forces personnel. The court examined whether a death due to cardiac failure during a notified operation qualifies for the enhanced pension benefits, typically reserved for deaths directly related to combat or enemy action. This judgment clarifies the conditions under which families of armed forces personnel are entitled to receive Liberalized Family Pension.

Case Background

The appellant’s husband was commissioned in the Army in October 1968 and was promoted to Colonel in 1990. He was posted as the Commandant of 890 Animal Transport Battalion in Nowshera, Jammu and Kashmir. Due to operational requirements, he was moved to Rajouri for Operation Ran Vijay at the location of HQ 25 Infantry Division.

On the morning of January 25, 1992, he was found dead in his room. The cause of death was determined to be sudden cardiac failure due to high stress and strain. Initially, the appellant was granted an ordinary family pension, which was later upgraded to a special family pension.

The appellant contested the initial classification of her husband’s death as a “physical casualty,” arguing that it should be recorded as a “physical casualty under Operation Rakshak.” She sought the enhanced Liberalized Family Pension, which is typically granted to families of personnel who die in specific operational circumstances. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh directed the alteration of the service record of the Appellant’s husband to “physical casualty under Operation Rakshak” based on the findings of the Court of Inquiry that the death of the Appellant’s husband was attributable to bona fide military service in the field covered under Operation Rakshak. The High Court further directed the Respondents to consider grant of Liberalised Family Pension to the Appellant. However, the respondents rejected the claim for Liberalized Family Pension.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of pensionary benefits for Armed Forces personnel, particularly the “Liberalized Family Pension.” The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the following:

• Instructions dated 31.01.2001: These instructions detail the modifications to pension rules/regulations, dividing cases into categories based on the circumstances of death or disability. Category ‘E’ includes deaths or disabilities arising from enemy action, peacekeeping missions, border skirmishes, and other specified operational situations.
• Category ‘E’ of Part II of the Instructions dated 31.01.2001: This category specifies the conditions under which a family of a deceased armed forces personnel is entitled to Liberalised Family Pension. It includes deaths or disabilities arising from:
  • Enemy action in international war.
  • Action during deployment with a peacekeeping mission abroad.
  • Border skirmishes.
  • During laying or clearance of mines.
  • Accidental explosions of mines.
  • War-like situations, including extremist acts.
  • Acts of violence by extremists.
  • Action against extremists.
  • Operations specially notified by the Government from time to time.
• Notification dated 07.05.1990: This notification extended certain concessions to Armed Forces personnel deployed in Operation Rakshak. It stated that Liberalized Pensionary Awards were applicable to personnel engaged in active operations against militants, subject to the conditions laid down in the letter dated 24.02.1972.
• Letter dated 24.02.1972: This letter outlines the modifications to rules regarding special family pensionary awards and disability pensions. It specifies that Liberalized Family Pension is granted to families of personnel killed or disabled due to injuries sustained in action.
• Section 3 and 9 of the Army Act, 1950: These sections were referred to by the appellant to argue that her husband was in active service at the time of his death.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments

• The appellant argued that her husband’s death occurred while he was on active service during Operation Rakshak, which is a notified operation under Category ‘E’ of the Instructions dated 31.01.2001.
• She contended that all Army personnel working in Jammu and Kashmir were declared to be on active service as per the notification dated 05.09.1977, and her husband was indeed in active service as per Section 3 and 9 of the Army Act, 1950.
• The appellant emphasized that her husband’s death, though due to sudden cardiac failure, occurred during his service in Operation Rakshak, making her eligible for Liberalized Family Pension as per para 6 of the Instructions dated 31.01.2001.
• She relied on judgments from various High Courts which had granted Liberalised Family Pension to families of Armed Forces personnel who died during notified operations.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The respondent contended that Liberalized Family Pension is specifically for deaths or injuries caused in live action, emphasizing the sacrifices made by servicemen killed in combat.
• They argued that the death of the appellant’s husband due to sudden cardiac failure falls under Category ‘B’ of the Instructions issued on 31.01.2001, for which Special Family Pension was rightly granted.
• The respondent highlighted that the genesis of Liberalized Family Pension, as per the communication dated 24.02.1972, was to acknowledge the sacrifices of those killed in live action.
• They argued that the notification dated 07.05.1990, which extended concessions to personnel in Operation Rakshak, specifically mentioned that Liberalized Pensionary Awards were only applicable to troops engaged in active operations against militants, as per para I of the letter dated 24.02.1972.
• According to the letter dated 24.02.1972, only personnel killed or disabled due to injuries in action were eligible for Liberalized Pensionary Awards.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the appellant, whose husband died due to cardiac failure while serving in a notified operation (Operation Rakshak), is entitled to Liberalized Family Pension under Category ‘E’ of the Instructions dated 31.01.2001.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India [2012 (6) SCC 502]*: The Court used this case to support its view that granting Liberalized Family Pension for natural causes would diminish the value of sacrifices made by those killed in live action.
• High Court Judgments (Manju Tewari, Preeti Sidhu, K.J.S. Buttar, Major Arvind Kumar Suhag, J. P Bhardwaj, Radhika Devi, Pushpa Devi): The Court dismissed these judgments, noting that the High Courts had not examined the letter dated 24.02.1972 and the notification dated 07.05.1990.
• Instructions dated 31.01.2001: The Court interpreted these instructions, particularly Category ‘E’, to determine the scope of Liberalized Family Pension.
• Notification dated 07.05.1990: The Court used this notification to emphasize that Liberalized Pensionary Awards were applicable only to troops engaged in active operations against militants, as per the letter dated 24.02.1972.
• Letter dated 24.02.1972: This letter was central to the Court’s decision, as it clearly stated that Liberalized Family Pension is granted to families of personnel killed or disabled due to injuries sustained in action.
• Section 3 and 9 of the Army Act, 1950: The Court acknowledged the appellant’s submission that her husband was in active service but did not base its decision on these provisions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a strict interpretation of the rules and regulations governing Liberalized Family Pension. The Court emphasized that the benefits were specifically intended for those who died or were disabled due to injuries sustained in action, as outlined in the letter dated 24.02.1972. The Court’s reasoning focused on maintaining the distinction between deaths in combat or due to direct action and deaths due to natural causes, even if they occurred during a notified operation.

Ratio: Fact:Law The sentiment analysis shows that the court was heavily influenced by the legal interpretation of the existing rules and regulations (70%) rather than the specific facts of the case (30%). The court’s emphasis on the letter dated 24.02.1972 and the distinction between deaths in combat and deaths due to natural causes indicates a focus on strict adherence to legal provisions.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Strict Interpretation: The Supreme Court emphasized a strict interpretation of the rules and regulations, particularly the letter dated 24.02.1972, which requires death or disability to be a result of injuries sustained in action for eligibility for Liberalized Family Pension.
• Distinction Maintained: The Court upheld the distinction between deaths in combat or due to direct action and deaths due to natural causes, even if they occur during a notified operation.
• Importance of Specific Language: The judgment highlights the importance of specific language in government notifications and circulars. The notification dated 07.05.1990, which extended concessions to personnel in Operation Rakshak, was interpreted strictly to limit the applicability of Liberalized Pensionary Awards to those engaged in active operations against militants as per the letter dated 24.02.1972.
• Rejection of High Court Precedents: The Supreme Court dismissed the High Court judgments that granted Liberalized Family Pension in similar cases, noting that those courts had not examined the letter dated 24.02.1972 and the notification dated 07.05.1990.
• Future Impact: This judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving claims for Liberalized Family Pension, clarifying that death due to natural causes during a notified operation does not automatically qualify for the enhanced benefits.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The appeals were dismissed.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a family of an Armed Forces personnel to be eligible for Liberalized Family Pension, the death or disability of the personnel must be a direct result of injuries sustained in action, as outlined in the letter dated 24.02.1972. Death due to natural causes, even if occurring during a notified operation, does not qualify for Liberalized Family Pension.

Change in Previous Positions of Law: This judgment clarifies the interpretation of the rules and regulations regarding Liberalized Family Pension. While High Courts had previously granted relief in similar cases, the Supreme Court’s ruling provides a definitive interpretation, emphasizing the importance of the letter dated 24.02.1972 and the notification dated 07.05.1990. This judgment establishes that a strict interpretation of the rules is necessary and that the benefit is only for those who died or were disabled due to injuries sustained in action.

Conclusion

In Kanchan Dua vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the appellant, whose husband died due to cardiac failure while serving in a notified operation, was not entitled to Liberalized Family Pension. The Court emphasized that the benefit is specifically for those who died or were disabled due to injuries sustained in action, as per the letter dated 24.02.1972. This judgment clarifies the scope of Liberalized Family Pension, establishing that death due to natural causes during a notified operation does not automatically qualify for the enhanced benefits.