In The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Sitting At Lucknow Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18210-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3051 of 2025 Petitioner :- Archana Singh Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defence Army South Block And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India/Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the Union of India. vie 2. By order dated 19.3.2025, this Court having regard to the preservation of the viscera of the deceased directed as under :- "1. Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are present. 2. The cause of death in the present case as per postmortem report was to be ascertained on the basis of viscera report of which the sample was preserved. As to whether the case at hand was a case of physical causality or the cause of death may be attributable to any other reason, can only be clarified by the viscera report for which the sample was preserved. Page No. 1 of 6 3. Let the viscera report of the petitioner's husband along with medical opinion be placed before this Court on the next date of listing. 4. List this petition on 02.04.2025 in the list of fresh cases". 3. Today, when the case was taken up, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner making some further averments therein. The supplementary affidavit filed is taken on record. 4. It is relevant to note that it is nowhere a case of the petitioner that his case would strengthen on the basis of the preserved viscera. We are also of the view that the viscera report is not a piece of evidence which may show a causal connection between the military service and the death of the deceased(petitioner's husband) who died due to Spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage while traveling in a DTC Bus on 1.1.2018. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband while on leave was traveling by the DTC Bus on 1.1.2018 and on the way he suffered a Spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage as a result of which he passed away. As per rules, a dependent, consequent upon the death of the breadwinner in military service, is entitled to family pension. Undisputedly, the petitioner is receiving the family pension after the death of her husband. The claim Page No. 2 of 6 for special family pension and ex gratia lump-sum compensation on being considered was decided by means of the order dated 19.12.2018 whereby both the claims i.e. special family pension and ex gratia lump-sum compensation were denied. In the order passed on 19.12.2018, it is specifically mentioned that there was no causal connection between the death and the military service. In absence of causal connection between the death and military service, the special family pension was denied to the petitioner apart from the ex gratia lump sum compensation. 6. The order passed by the competent authority on 19.12.2018 gave rise to first appeal before the next higher authority. The first appeal preferred by the petitioner was finally rejected by the competent authority on 14.7.2020. On a perusal of the contents of the first appeal filed by the petitioner, it is gathered that apart from the mention of certain postings at high altitude, no material whatsoever was placed reliance upon indicating a causal connection of any disease which the petitioner's husband may have suffered from on account of military service. The appellate order passed by the competent authority though does not detail the exhaustive reasons but is succinct to the effect Page No. 3 of 6 that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any such causal connection between the death and military service. 7. The first appellate order passed on 14.7.2020 was further assailed by filing a second appeal before the next higher authority. The second appeal was also came to be rejected vide order dated 14.10.2022 indicating the same very reason that the cause of death was since not attributable to the military service, as such, the claim of special family pension did not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the competent authority and the first and second appellate authorities approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow in O.A. No. 183 of 2023 claiming the aforementioned reliefs. The claim of the petitioner for grant of special family pension and ex-gratia lump-sum compensation on appreciation of the rival contentions was finally rejected by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 5.9.2024. The petitioner again approached the tribunal by filing a review application which was also rejected by the tribunal observing that the grounds/details mentioned in the review application have already been considered by the tribunal while deciding the O.A. No. 183 of 2023 and in Page No. 4 of 6 absence of any apparent error on the face of judgment dated 5.9.2024, the review application was rejected. 9. Once the death was spontaneous while traveling in the DTC Bus on 1.1.2018, it was treated to be a case of physical casualty. The stand adopted by the Union of India in the counter affidavit was duly considered and appreciated by the tribunal 10. The tribunal while considering the rival claims has categorically observed that the petitioner had failed to adduce any evidence showing the causal connection between the death of the deceased employee and the military service barring certain prescriptions which were of no relevance. 11. This observation made by the learned tribunal has not been assailed before us on any ground of perversity or the same being illegal and contrary to the rules. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has though argued that the cases of hyper tension leading to such causalities have been considered by the courts of law for the purposes of grant of special family pension but on a close scrutiny of the case at hand, we find that in absence of any cogent material adduced before the tribunal, the findings so recorded and opinion of the physical casualty formed by the competent authority cannot be faulted with. In our humble Page No. 5 of 6 consideration, the judgment passed by the tribunal on 5.9.2024 as well as the rejection of review application by order dated 15.10.2024 do not suffer from any illegality or perversity calling for interference in exercise of the supervisory powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 13. The view expressed by the learned tribunal for the reasoning assigned in the orders impugned, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever. 14. The writ petition being bereft of any merit is accordingly dismissed. . [Rajeev Singh,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 2.4.2025 kanhaiya Page No. 6 of 6 Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench