The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, granted a war widow the full arrears of the Liberalized Family Pension (LFP), dating back to January 31, 2001. Setting aside limitations imposed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, the court underscored the principle that an indefeasible right cannot be denied due to procedural delays. The bench comprised Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepthi Sharma.
The judgment marks the culmination of a long legal battle fought by Anguri Devi, the widow of a soldier martyred in the 1965 war, for her rightful pension. The court ordered the respondents, the Union of India, to release the arrears with 8% annual interest within two months.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Anguri Devi, lost her husband in 1965 during a military operation involving the clearance of mines in a forward location. Her husband’s death was classified as an operational casualty, and she was granted a Special Family Pension. Decades later, the Government of India issued a policy on January 31, 2001, introducing the Liberalized Family Pension for families of soldiers who died in operational scenarios such as combat or mine-related explosions.
Under the 2001 policy, the LFP entitled war widows to benefits equal to the last drawn salary of the deceased soldier. However, despite the policy’s introduction, Anguri Devi continued to receive the lower Special Family Pension.
In 2017, Anguri Devi filed an application before the Armed Forces Tribunal, seeking arrears under the LFP scheme. While the Tribunal recognized her entitlement to LFP, it restricted the arrears to three years prior to the filing of her application. Dissatisfied with this limitation, she approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2020, seeking a complete revision of the order.
Key Legal Issues
The court’s deliberations centered around three significant legal questions:
1. Eligibility Under the 2001 Policy: Whether Anguri Devi’s claim fell within the scope of the Liberalized Family Pension policy.
2. Impact of Delay on Rights: Whether a delay in filing her claim extinguished her right to receive arrears beyond the three-year period awarded by the Tribunal.
3. Recurring Cause of Action: Whether the LFP constituted a recurring and continuous right, unaffected by procedural lapses.
Court Observations
In its detailed judgment, the court underscored the recurring nature of the petitioner’s entitlement under the 2001 policy.
– On Procedural Delays: The court held that procedural delays should not disqualify a beneficiary, especially in cases involving fundamental entitlements. The Bench observed:
“The conferred indefeasible right vis-à-vis the widow of the deceased soldier… was a recurring and continuous cause of action, irrespective of delay.”
– Nature of the Right: The court highlighted that the 2001 policy created an indefeasible and recurring right for the families of soldiers who died in operational service. Therefore, the petitioner’s entitlement could not be limited merely because she approached the court after an extended period.
– Tribunal’s Limitation Quashed: The Bench set aside the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order restricting the arrears to three years, declaring this limitation contrary to the principles of justice.
The court also took into account the circumstances of the petitioner, noting her status as a war widow who had waited decades for justice.
Order of the Court
The High Court allowed the writ petition, granting the petitioner arrears of the Liberalized Family Pension dating back to January 31, 2001, the date the policy was issued. It directed the Union of India and other respondents to calculate and release the arrears along with 8% interest per annum within two months of receiving the order.
The final order stated:
“The impugned order, as passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal concerned, is modified to the extent that the relevant part of the impugned order, whereby arrears are restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the application, is quashed and set aside.”
Arguments Presented
– For the Petitioner: Advocates Mr. Navdeep Singh, Ms. Roopan Atwal, and Ms. Srishti Sharma argued that the petitioner’s right to LFP was a recurring one that could not be extinguished by delay. They emphasized that the government’s policy explicitly recognized the operational circumstances of her husband’s death and entitled her to benefits from 2001 onward.
– For the Respondents: Representing the Union of India, Senior Panel Counsel Ms. Anita Chawla argued that the delay in filing the claim justified the limitation of arrears to three years, as awarded by the Tribunal.
The court, however, sided with the petitioner, ruling that the right to LFP was continuous and recurring, unaffected by procedural delays.
