[2025:RJ-JP:38225-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13954/2025 Smt. Tarawati Wd/o Late Sigman Hanuman Singh, Resident Of Village And Post Kanawasi Post Baijuwa, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Uoi, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, South Block, Govt. Of India, New Delhi-110011 2. The Pcda (P), Prayagraj, Up. 3. The Oic Records, Records The Signals, Jabalpur-482001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anjali Minocha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 18/09/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents on advance notice. 3. The challenge is to the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by learned Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AFT’) whereby the OA preferred by the petitioner was disposed of. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner being widow and having no knowledge of the rights available to her for carrying family pension, could not take up the matter relating to claim of family pension earlier. Learned counsel also submits that the order of dismissal was passed which has [2025:RJ-JP:38225-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13954/2025] resulted in depriving the pension or family pension, was legal and lawful. 5. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner’s husband had been wrongly dealt by the Armed Forces and the charge of mislead the identity card was of not such nature, for which he should have been dismissed from service. The second allegation of the husband having been desertion was also unjustified. The full & fledged inquiry was required to be conducted before dismissing from service and by Summary Court-Martial, the petitioner’s husband was wrongfully dismissed. 6. With regard to the petitioner’s husband not having taken up the challenge to the dismissal order during his life time, she submits that he was not in a fit condition mentally to take up the case for challenging his dismissal. 7. We have considered the submissions and carefully looked into documents which were placed before the AFT and before us. 8. The AFT has noticed that the husband of the petitioner was enrolled in the Army (Corps of Signals) on 29.01.1970 while serving the One Signal Group, he was tried by the Summary Court-Martial for offences under Sections 38(i) and 54(b) of the Indian Army Act(hereinafter referred as ‘Army Act’) and was dismissed from service on 06.10.1982 . He had rendered 12 years 10 months & 6 days of service. The charge was of desertion and also of having lost of committing neglect of loosing his identity card which falls under Section 54(b) of the Army Act. As per the information available and asserted by the petitioner, the husband had left the head quarters without seeking permission and did not [2025:RJ-JP:38225-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13954/2025] return back. The inquiry conducted by the Summary Court-Martial and dismissed him from service on 06.10.1982. 9. We also noticed that after dismissal from the service on 06.10.1982, the husband of the petitioner did not challenge or make any representation to Higher Authorities relating to the dismissal order till he dies on 05.02.1996. Thus, we find that the husband of the petitioner accepted the allegations leveled against him and he also accepted the punishment awarded to him without any demur. The petitioner who is wife of the serviceman cannot be allowed to argue more than what her husband would have claimed during his life time. The assertion of her husband having lost mental balance and suffering from a psychiatric disorder, is also not found to be duly proved. A person who has been dismissed from service does not get any benefit of his service. It is also at the petitioner behest that any right would flow to the family, including the wife of the delinquent. 10. Since the dismissal order stands, no relief of pension, retiral benefits can be granted to the petitioner, although the claim itself raised by the petitioner even after death of her husband is more than 17 years, without going into that aspect, we find that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed. 12. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/27