Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Smt. Surinder Kaur

M.M. Kumar, J.—This appeal by Union of India is directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge

while disposing of C.W.P. No. 12987 of 1994 filed by Smt. Surinder Kaur mother of Lance Nayak Balwinder Singh Cheema. Before the learned

Single Judge, the appellant had agreed that the controversy was squarely covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt.

Premwati v. Union of India and Ors. 2008 (3) SLR 531. Her son was enrolled in the Indian Army on 17.03.1988. He was granted four days''

leave from 01.09.1991 to 04.09.1991 for participating in tournaments. During the leave period, he met with an accident and died in the Civil

Hospital at Fatehgarh Sahib. He has named his mother as next of kin. All the dues of the son of the petitioner, like gratuity, insurance, welfare

contribution have been paid to her. However, her claim for grant of Special Family Pension/Ordinary Family Pension has been rejected by the

appellants vide order dated 21.10.1993. Learned Counsel for the appellants gave concession by stating that matter was covered in favour of the

petitioner-respondent by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Premwati''s case (supra). The relevant part of the judgment

reads thus:

It is agreed by the Ld. Counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this

Court in the case of Smt. Premwati v. Union of India and Ors. 2008 (3) SLR 531.

Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that no pension would be admissible to the petitioner-respondent because

the death of her son cannot be attributed to military service as her son was on leave. She has also argued that the judgment in Premwati''s case

(supra) has been stayed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court.

Having heard learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that instant appeal is without any merit. Firstly, the appellants have agreed before

the learned Single Judge that the matter was covered against them by a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Premwati''s case

(supra). It is not now open to them to dispute the aforesaid concession. With regard to second issue of stay of Hon''ble the Supreme Court, it may

be observed that there are no details available except a bald assertion. Moreover, the view taken by this Court in the case of Roshan Jagdish Lal

Duggal v. P.S.E.B. 1984 (2) SLR is that the stay of the judgment would not deplete its precidential value. In para 11, this Court has made

following observations:

The admission of an appeal against the order of the High Court and the suspension of its operation during the pendency of the appeal does not

have the effect of rendering it non-est till the disposal of the appeal nor has it been so held in the order dated February 14, 1983, dismissing

C.W.P. No. 5911 of 1983 in limine, wherein the castigation of a few members of the Haryana Public Service Commission in another writ was not

allowed to be utilised because this finding was sub judice before the Supreme Court. It is thus obvious that the ratio of Sukhdev Raj Sharma''s

case (supra) shall continue to be a binding precedent irrespective that an appeal therefrom is pending in the Supreme Court and its future operation

suspended till its disposal.

For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

As the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal.