CWP-7478-2025 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (265) CWP-7478-2025 Date of Decision : 14.07.2026 Union of India and Others ...Petitioners Versus Manisha Yadav and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Rohit Verma, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners-UOI. Mr. Arshit Goel, Advocate, and Mr. Ajay Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent No.1. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) 1. In the present petition, challenge is to the order dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby Original Application No.309 of 2020 filed by the private respondent was allowed and an ex gratia amount of ₹10,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the respondent on account of the death of her husband, who succumbed to cancer while in service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the grant of ex gratia is governed by the policy dated 22.09.1998 (Annexure P-4), under which the benefit is admissible only in cases where the death occurs due to an accident in the course of performance of duty; or where the death occurs during the performance of duty and is attributable to acts of violence by SHUBHAM 2026.07.20 14:48 I am the author of this document CWP-7478-2025 2 | P a g e terrorists or anti-social elements; or where the death occurs during enemy action in an international war, border skirmishes, or operations against militants, terrorists or extremists. It is contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the said policy and erroneously granted the benefit of ex gratia to the respondent, even though the deceased had died due to cancer and not in any of the contingencies envisaged under the policy. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Ex-Hav Ashok Kumar v. Union of India & Others”, Civil Appeal No.6126 of 2019, decided on 24.07.2019. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the husband of the respondent had contracted cancer during the course of his military service and his death on account thereof has been held to be attributable to military service for the purposes of grant of pensionary benefits by the learned Tribunal while granting relief to the respondent in the impugned order, the same is also liable to be taken into consideration for extending the benefit of ex gratia under the policy. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 5. It is a conceded fact that any claim for a monetary or service benefit has to be supported by the instructions or rules on the issue concerned. The benefit of ex gratia is only admissible as per the instructions dated 22.09.1998, a copy whereof has been appended as Annexure P-4, to the present petition. The relevant paragraph of the said instructions reads as under: “I am directed to refer to Government of India, Min. of Personnel Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Pension & SHUBHAM 2026.07.20 14:48 I am the author of this document CWP-7478-2025 3 | P a g e Pensioner’s Welfare O.M. No.45/55/97-P&PW(C) dated 11-9-98 and state that the President is pleased to decide that the families of Defence Service personnel who die in harness in the performance of their bona fide official duties shall be paid the following ex gratia lum sum compensation: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (a) Death occurring due to accidents in the Rs.5.00 lakhs, course of performance of duties. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (b) Death occurring in the course of performance Rs.5.00 lakhs of duties attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, anti-social element etc. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (c) Death occurring during (i) enemy action Rs. 7.50 lakhs in international war or border skirmishes; and (ii) action against militants terrorists, extremist, etc.” 6. A bare perusal of the above-discussed instructions shows that the claim of the respondent is not covered under any of the clauses enumerated therein as death of the husband of the respondent occurred due to cancer. The Tribunal hence failed to appreciate the said policy while granting the benefit of ex gratia to the respondent. Rather, in Ex-Hav Ashok Kumar’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has categorically held that the ex gratia compensation can only be granted in case, the claim is covered under the said policy/ instructions. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as follows: “This indicates that a person who is placed in a permanent low medical category, except a battle casualty or a person wounded in action, and consequently placed in a permanent low medical category during the extended service SHUBHAM 2026.07.20 14:48 I am the author of this document CWP-7478-2025 4 | P a g e will be discharged under the existing rules. Such a person who is discharged undoubtedly would be entitled to the benefit of the disability pension by virtue of the deeming fiction in Regulation 173-A of the Pension Regulations. However, it does not ipso facto entitle the individual to the grant of ex-gratia compensation. The case for ex-gratia compensation has to fall within the purview of the governing conditions which are contained in the policy circular dated 26 December 2011.” 7. Hence, the case of the husband of the respondent is not covered under the said policy/ instructions for the grant of ex gratia benefits, the directions issued by learned Tribunal for grant of ex gratia compensation is totally perverse. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal is set aside, the present writ petition is allowed, and the Original Application filed by the respondent stands dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE July 14, 2026 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes SHUBHAM 2026.07.20 14:48 I am the author of this document