Supreme Court Grants Liberalised Family Pension to Widow of Soldier Who Died in Extreme Climatic Conditions: Union of India vs. Saroj Devi (2024) INSC 921 (03 December 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 December 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 921
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Augustine George Masih, J.
Can a soldier’s death due to extreme weather conditions during duty near the Line of Control (LC) be considered a ‘battle casualty,’ thereby entitling the family to a Liberalised Family Pension (LFP)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the denial of LFP to the widow of a soldier who died while on patrol in harsh climatic conditions. The court examined the relevant orders and circumstances to determine whether the death qualified as a battle casualty, ultimately ruling in favor of the widow. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih.

Case Background

The respondent, Saroj Devi, is the widow of late Naik Inderjeet Singh, who was employed in the Indian Army. On 23rd January 2013, while on an Area Domination Patrol near the Line of Control (LC) in extreme climatic conditions, Naik Inderjeet Singh complained of breathlessness. He was taken to a nearby post, and despite efforts to evacuate him, he died due to cardiopulmonary arrest. Initially, his death was classified as a ‘battle casualty’ but was later reclassified as a ‘physical casualty’ attributable to military service. Consequently, while the respondent received all terminal benefits, including a special family pension, she was denied the Liberalised Family Pension (LFP). Aggrieved, she filed an original application before the Armed Forces Tribunal, seeking the quashing of the order denying her LFP and a direction to grant her LFP with interest.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Armed Forces Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the respondent, directing that she be granted the Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) and the ex-gratia lump sum amount payable in case of battle casualties dying in harness. The Tribunal held that the death of the soldier was a battle casualty. The Union of India and other appellants challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The grant of Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) is governed by the order dated 31st January 2001 issued by the Director (Pensions) of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Clause 6.1 of the order specifies that LFP is granted in case of death of an Armed Forces Personnel under the circumstances mentioned in category “D” & “E” of Para 4.1. Category E includes deaths or disabilities arising from various situations, including war-like situations. The relevant portion of Clause 6.1 of the order dated 31st January 2001 is as follows:

“6. Liberalised Family Pension (LFP)
6.1 In case of death of an Armed Forces Personnel under the circumstances mentioned in category “D” & “E” of Para 4.1 above, the eligible member of the family shall be entitled to Liberalised Family Pension equal to reckonable emoluments last drawn as defined in Para 3.1 above, both for officers and PBOR. Liberalised Family Pension at this rate shall be admissible to the widow in the case of officers and to the nominated heir in the case of PBOR until death or disqualification.”

Category E of the order includes:

“Category E
Death or disability arising as a result of: –
(a) Enemy action in international war.
(b) Action during deployment with a peacekeeping mission abroad.
(c) Border skirmishes.
(d) During laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also minesweeping operation.
(e) On account of accidental explosions of mines while laying operationally oriented mine -field or lifting or negotiating minefield laid by enemy or own forces in operational areas near international borders or the line of control.
(f) War like situations, including cases which are attributable to/aggravated by : –
(i) Extremist acts, exploding mines etc. while on way to an operational area.
(ii) Battle inoculation training exercises or demonstration with live ammunition.
(iii) Kidnapping by extremists while on operational duty.
(g) An act of violence/attack by extremists, anti -social elements, etc .
(h) Action against extremists, antisocial elements, etc. Death/disability while employed in the aid of civil power in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrators will be covered under this category.
(i) Operations specially notified by the Govt. from time to time.”

Additionally, Army Order 1 of 2003, Appendix ‘A’, categorizes casualties, including battle casualties. Clause (g) of Category 1 of Appendix ‘A’ of the said order includes:

“(g) Casualties occurring while operating on the International Border or Line of Control due to natural calamities and illness caused by climatic conditions.”

Arguments

Submissions by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The Additional Solicitor General argued that LFP is granted under categories D and E of the order dated 31st January 2001.
• Category D does not apply to the deceased.
• The case of the deceased is not covered by any clauses in category E.
• The deceased died due to cardiopulmonary arrest and was classified as a ‘physical casualty’ attributable to military service, not a ‘battle casualty.’
• The appellants relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kanchan Dua v. Union of India and Anr. [(2020) 18 SCC 709] and Radhika Devi v. Union of India and Ors. [(2020) 18 SCC 715], contending that the present case is covered by these decisions.
• The Tribunal’s view is erroneous as the death was not a battle casualty.

Submissions by the Respondent (Saroj Devi):

• The senior counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment by relying on the documents annexed to the counter affidavit.
• The respondent contended that her husband’s death occurred while on duty in extreme climatic conditions near the Line of Control (LC), which should be considered a ‘battle casualty’ under the relevant orders.
• The respondent argued that her husband was part of an Area Domination Patrol in extreme climatic conditions, which led to his death.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the death of the deceased, due to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions while on duty near the Line of Control (LC), falls under the category of ‘battle casualty’ as per the relevant orders, thus entitling the respondent to Liberalised Family Pension (LFP)?

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?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the cases of Kanchan Dua v. Union of India and Anr. [(2020) 18 SCC 709] and Radhika Devi v. Union of India and Ors. [(2020) 18 SCC 715], stating that they were decided on the basis of the peculiar facts of those cases and were not applicable to the facts of the present case.
• The Court applied the order dated 31st January 2001, issued by the Director (Pensions) of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, and held that the case falls under category E, specifically clause (f).
• The Court also applied clause 1(g) of Appendix ‘A’ of the Army Order 1 of 2003, which includes casualties occurring while operating on the International Border or Line of Control due to natural calamities and illness caused by climatic conditions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual circumstances of the case and the interpretation of the relevant orders and regulations. The court emphasized that the soldier’s death occurred due to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions while he was on duty near the Line of Control (LC). This was deemed a ‘battle casualty’ under the provisions of the Army Order 1 of 2003 and also under category E (f) of the order dated 31st January 2001. The court also noted that the initial classification of the death as a ‘battle casualty’ by the Commanding Officer was correct, and the subsequent reclassification was not justified. The court also expressed its displeasure at the fact that the widow of a soldier who died in harness had to be dragged to the court, and imposed costs on the appellants.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the death occurred in a war-like situation due to extreme climatic conditions while the soldier was on duty near the Line of Control (LC). The court held that the definition of death as a result of war-like situations is an inclusive definition. The court also noted that the death was attributable to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions, which falls under clause 1(g) of Appendix ‘A’ of the Army Order 1 of 2003. The court also noted that the case falls under clause (f) of category E of the order dated 31st January 2001. The court rejected the argument that the death was merely a ‘physical casualty’ and not a ‘battle casualty’.

The Supreme Court rejected the alternative interpretation that the death was not a ‘battle casualty’ because it was due to cardio-pulmonary arrest and not direct enemy action. The court stated that the definition of ‘battle casualty’ includes illness caused by climatic conditions while on duty near the Line of Control (LC). The court emphasized that the death occurred due to the extreme climatic conditions and the soldier’s duty near the Line of Control (LC), thus making it a ‘battle casualty’.

The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that the respondent was entitled to the Liberalised Family Pension (LFP). The court also imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants for dragging the widow of a deceased soldier to the court.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Thus, the death can be attributed to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions. Hence, as per clause 1 (g) of Appendix ‘A’ of the Army Order 1 of 2003, the case will fall in ‘Battle Casualties’.”

“Clause (f) of category E is attracted when death arises as a result of war-like situations. The definition of death as a result of war-like situations is an inclusive definition, and the case cannot remain confined to sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of category E (f). In this case, the death has occurred as a result of a war-like situation prevailing near LC.”

“In our view, in a case like this, the respondent ought not to have been dragged to this Court, and the decision-making authority of the appellants ought to have been sympathetic to the widow of a deceased soldier who died in harness.”

Key Takeaways

• The death of a soldier due to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions while on duty near the Line of Control (LC) is considered a ‘battle casualty’.
• The definition of ‘battle casualty’ includes casualties occurring due to natural calamities and illness caused by climatic conditions while operating on the International Border or Line of Control.
• The Supreme Court emphasized a sympathetic approach towards the families of soldiers who die in the line of duty.
• The court imposed costs on the appellants for unnecessarily dragging the widow of a deceased soldier to the court.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the directions contained in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment shall be implemented within a maximum period of three months from the date of the judgment. The court also directed the appellants to pay the costs quantified as Rs.50,000 to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the death of a soldier due to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions while on duty near the Line of Control (LC) qualifies as a ‘battle casualty’, entitling the family to the Liberalised Family Pension (LFP). This clarifies the scope of ‘battle casualty’ to include deaths resulting from illness due to climatic conditions while on duty near the Line of Control (LC), even if not directly caused by enemy action. There is no change in the previous position of law but the court has clarified the interpretation of existing provisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, affirming the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to grant the Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) to the widow of a soldier who died due to illness caused by extreme climatic conditions while on duty near the Line of Control (LC). The court held that such a death qualifies as a ‘battle casualty’ under the relevant orders and regulations. The court also imposed costs on the appellants for dragging the widow to the court.