Punjab & Haryana High Court: Soldier Dying From Altercation With Another Soldier In Drunk State Not Covered Under Liberalized Family Pension

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a death resulting from fight between two soldiers in a drunk state is not covered under Liberalized Family Pension.

The Court was considering a Petition challenging an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal by which the benefit of Liberalised Family Pension was not granted to the Petitioner.

The Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri observed, "....Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances once, the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of Special Family Pension, the circumstances under which the husband of the petitioner died, cannot be treated to have been covered under the clause ‘g’ (supra), so as to grant her the benefit as is being claimed by her of Liberalised Family Pension, as is being claimed by her.."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate R.S. Panghal, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Rohit Verma.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner argued that though the benefit of Special Family Pension has already been granted to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is rather entitled for the benefit of Liberalised Family Pension by treating the death of her husband as having happened during the war.

Counsel appearing for the Respondent – UOI submitted that the benefit of Special Family Pension has already been granted to the Petitioner but the benefit of Liberalised Family Pension can only be given in case, the death of an employee concerned occurs in a war zone or during happening of an operation and in the present case, the death of the late husband of Petitioner happened at the hands of a colleague while he was posted in a unit and not during happening of any war or an operation being undertaken.

Reasoning By Court

The Court noted that there was a fight between the husband of the petitioner and another colleague after consumption of liquor, during which fight, he was shot by the said colleague which resulted in his death. The clause ‘g’ under which the Petitioner is trying to bring her case to get the Liberalised Family Pension relates to an act of violence/attack by extremists or anti-social elements, but the same will not cover a situation of a private fight amongst employees after being drunk.

"A bare perusal of the above would show that the same can only be invoked in case there is a battle inoculation training exercises or demonstration with live ammunition, during which the death occurs whereas, in the present case, the death of the husband of the petitioner was due to the fight in drunken state between two Soldiers and that too not during any training exercise or live ammunition demonstration", the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Smt. Mukeshvati vs. Union of India and others (2025:PHHC:113201-DB)

Click here to read/ download Order