O.A. No. 05 of 2013. Case: Smt. Vasantha Rajamani Vs Union of India, The Senior Records Officer, The Area Commander and The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts. Armed Forces Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. No. 05 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. S. Mahesh, Representing M/s. Krishna Associates and Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, Counsel and For Respondents: Shri B. Shanthakumar, SPC
JudgesV. Periya Karuppiah, Member (J) and Anand Mohan Verma, Member (Ad.)
IssueCriminal Law
Judgement DateJune 05, 2013
CourtArmed Forces Tribunal


Anand Mohan Verma, Member (Ad.), (Regional Bench, Chennai)

  1. This 61 year old petitioner is the widow of late Havildar S. Rajamani who was enrolled in the Indian Army on 11th March 1963 as Havildar/Clk (GD). Her husband was discharged from service on 19th August 1983 and was in receipt of Defence Pension. After discharge, he was re-employed in Canara Bank as clerk where he died in harness on 30th September 1997. Upon his death, she is in receipt of Family Pension from Canara Bank. The family pension from army was not granted on the ground that she was not entitled to family pension from the Army since she was in receipt of family pension from Canara Bank. The petitioner now requests for dual pension which may be sanctioned with effect from 27 January 2001 along with interest. The petitioner would plead that Government of India, Department of Pension and Personnel Welfare Office vide their Memorandum 4/10/2006-P&PW (D), dated 14.5.2007, the Central Government have amended their notification No 1/19/96-P&PE(E) dated 27.01.2001 vide which family pension from dual sources, viz., Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 have been allowed. This amendment has come into effect from 27th July 2001. The petitioner would plead that she has three grown-up children and is finding it difficult to lead a decent livelihood with the lone source of Bank Pension. She would go on to argue that she is entitled to family pension both from Canara Bank and the Army in accordance with the existing policies of the Government and would request the Tribunal to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of dual pension which had been sanctioned in unequivocal terms to her with effect from 27th July 2001 as due along with interest.

  2. The respondents would state that the petitioner's husband was discharged with effect from 19th August 1983 at his own request under Army Rule 134(3) Item III (iv). He was granted Service Pension of Rs. 231/- per month which was further revised to Rs. 232/- per month. The petitioner's husband died on 13th September 1997 and the respondents received a communication from the petitioner under Canara Bank, Madurai, letter dated 3.11.1997 in which she requested for family pension from the Army. As per the orders prevailing at that time, only one pension was allowable either from re-employed department or from the Army side. Accordingly, the Manager, Canara Bank was informed and was asked to forward a certificate to the effect that no family pension was granted by the re-employed department. In response, the petitioner opted to avail family pension from Bank and not from the Army vide her petition dated 29th November 1997. Since, the respondents would add, that as per the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT