OA 268 and 690 of 2010. Case: 1. Baljinder Kaur, 2. Union of India Vs 1. Union of India, 2. Mukhtiar Singh. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case Number:OA 268 and 690 of 2010
Party Name:1. Baljinder Kaur, 2. Union of India Vs 1. Union of India, 2. Mukhtiar Singh
Counsel:For Appellant: Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for Rajeev Anand, Advocate and Ram Chander, Sr. PC and For Respondents: Geeta Singhwal, Sr. PC and S.S. Cheema and Rajeev Anand
Judges:Vinod Kumar Ahuja, J. (Member (J)) and Air Marshal (Retd.) Naresh Verma, Member (A)
Issue:Service Law
Judgement Date:April 25, 2014
Court:Armed Forces Tribunal
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

(Chandigarh, Regional Bench At Chandimandir)

1. This order shall dispose of two appeals, one filed by Smt. Baljinder Kaur widow of the individual against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2004 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib and another filed by Union of India and others against the said judgment and decree mentioned above.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a civil suit was filed by Mukhtiar Singh being the father of the individual and Harbans Kaur being the mother of the individual (deceased Sukhminder Singh) in which the Union of India was made a party as well as the present appellant Baljinder Kaur being the wife of the said individual. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction by the parents of the deceased alleging that since they are the parents of the deceased and the deceased had also nominated his father Mukhtiar singh as his nominee, they alone are entitled to special family pension to the exclusion of defendant No. 6 Smt. Baljinder Kaur. Defendant No. 6 had also put up a counter claim that she alone along with plaintiff No. 2 being the mother of the deceased are entitled to claim all the service benefits of the deceased on account of the death of the individual. She put up the claim that she along with plaintiff No. 2 are entitled to an equal share in these benefits.

3. The suit was tried by the learned Civil Judge who decreed the same holding that plaintiff No. 1 Mukhtiar Singh being the nominee is entitled to special family pension of the individual and the counter claim put up by defendant No. 6 Baljinder Kaur was allowed to this extent that she along with plaintiff No. 2 Harbans Kaur mother of the individual are entitled to an equal share in these benefits. However, it was also mentioned that whatever benefits have already been released in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 6 will be at liberty to file a suit for recovery of her share of all those benefits to the extent of her share.

4. An appeal was preferred by defendant No. 6 Baljinder Kaur widow of the deceased and another appeal was also filed by Union of India against the judgment and decree of the Civil Court and both the appeals were pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and on creation of this Tribunal both these were transferred to this Tribunal for disposal.

5. A notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents.

6. We have heard the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL