Rajammal vs Union of India (UOI)

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the mother of deceased one C. Ramalingam, claiming

payment of Special Family Pension.

2.It is not disputed that Sri.C. Ramalingam was working as Naik bearing No.1370152 and was posted as such under the control of the Officer of

Commanding 657, Engineer Bridging Unit at Simla. He was allowed to go on out-pass on 9.4.1989. Subsequently he did not return to the unit and

he was found dead n a hotel room near Simla, in the night of 10/11-4-1989. Admittedly the deceased was a bachelor, who left behind his mother,

the present petitioner, a younger brother and two married sisters. Present petitioner was nominated to his estate and for the family pension. After

the unnatural death, post-mortem was held. Post Mortem Report did not reveal whether the death was homicidal, accidental or suicidal.

Subsequently on chemical analysis of viscera, it was found that death was due to consumption of poison. Intimation was sent to the family members

about the death of the person and subsequently cremation was done in the presence of relatives of the deceased. On the above background of

undisputed facts, the present petitioner applied for grant of Special Family Pension, which having been rejected, the present writ petition has been

filed.

The prayer for grant of Special Family Pension was rejected solely on the ground that the deceased had committed suicide. This decision was

based on the report of chemical analysis. The report being material, relevant portion of the report is extracted hereunder :-

In the light of the above reports, the postmortem report has been reviewed and my final opinion in the case is Death of the deceased occurred

as a result of asphyxia - due to antemorte Consumption of Halogenated hydrocarbon group of insecticides.

One thing has to be noted that the Report itself does not say that whether the death was homicidal, suicidal or accidental. Similarly the Post-

mortem report also did not indicate that the death was homicidal, suicidal or accidental. However, the fact remains that the death was unnatural

and under mysterious circumstances. From the report of the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, which has been given as

Annexure R-7 along with the counter, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion that death must have been suicidal because possibility of

administering poison to a person by use of force or threat cannot be ruled out. Similarly it is also possible that poison might have been mixed with

food which the deceased might have taken without knowledge that food was mixed with poison. There is no material to indicate that deceased had

himself procured poison from some source. There is no material to show that the deceased had any suicidal tendency or any untoward incident had

happened to the deceased soon before the unfortunate accident. Without any reference to the above stated facts, it was most improper to come to

a conclusion that the death was suicidal and not otherwise. It is true that there is no positive material on record to prove that the death was

homicidal or accidental and not suicidal. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the deceased had been posted at a far away

place, it was futile to expect from the present petitioner to bring positive material to show that the death was homicidal or accidental and not

suicidal.

Since the question of grant of Special Family Pension to the dependant of an army personnel was involved, it has to be examined in a liberal

manner in favour of the petitioner rather than in favour of the respondents. Since the prayer for grant of Special Family Pension had been rejected

on insufficient materials, it is a fit case where the matter should be re-examined by the first respondent keeping in view all the relevant

circumstances including the observations made and thereafter to pass final order in the matter. While considering the question, the first respondent

is also directed to keep in view the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in SMT. CHARANJIT KAUR Vs.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Supreme Court Service Rulings, Volume 13 Page 100).

To facilitate consideration by the first respondent I call upon the petitioner to file a fresh application before the first respondent along with a copy

of the aforesaid decision and the present order. It would be open to the petitioner to enclose other materials, if any for consideration by the first

respondent. The first respondent shall consider the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six

months from the date of receipt of the fresh application along with the present order. The petitioner should also enclose a xerox copy of the

reported decision to facilitate earlier disposal. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There is no order as to costs.

Consequently, W.M.P.NO.510 of 1996 is closed.

I must place my appreciation for the fair manner in which the matter was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.