Serial No. 3 Regular Cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 2070/2022 C/w WP(C) No. 2071/2022 1. WP(C) No. 2070/2022 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Army HQ, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Engineer, Northern Command, Udhampur. 4. The Chief Engineer, HQ 31 Zone, C/o 56APO. 5. The Commander Works Engineer, HQ 133 WE, C/o 56 APO. 6. Garrison Engineer, 864 EWS, C/o 56 APO. 7. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad. ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Satinder Singh Kala, CGSC V/s Misra Bano (W/o Late Ali Mohd Hajam MES No. 503082, S/o Sh Ghulam Mohd Hajam), R/o Village Soitang, Tehsil Chadoora, District Budgam, Jammu and Kashmir. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. R. A. Bhat, Advocate 2. WP(C) No. 2071/2022 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Army HQ, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Engineer, Northern Command, Udhampur. 4. The Chief Engineer, HQ 31 Zone, C/o 56APO. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 5. The Commander Works Engineer, HQ 133 WE, C/o 56 APO. 6. Garrison Engineer, 864 EWS, C/o 56 APO. 7. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) Allahabad. ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Satinder Singh Kala, CGSC V/s Misra Bano W/o Late MES No. 506401 Mohd Maqbool Bhat, S/o Sh Habibullah Bhat R/o Village Soitang, Tehsil Chadoora, District Budgam, Jammu and Kashmir. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. R. A. Bhat, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE (ORDER) 22.05.2025 (Oral) WP(C) No. 2071/2022 01. The Union of India and six others, who are none other than the officers of petitioner No. 1, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to throw challenge to an order and Judgment dated 19.02.2019, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 62/132/2018 titled Misra Bano Vs. Union of India and Ors., whereby the Tribunal has quashed the order impugned in the OA and directed the petitioners herein to grant family pension to the respondent in terms of Special Pension Scheme, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare vide office memo No. 45/22/97- P&PW(C) dated 03.02.2000. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 02. Before we proceed to consider the grounds of challenge, urged by Mr. Satinder Singh Kala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, we deem it appropriate to refer to brief facts, which are material to the disposal of this petition. 03. The husband of the respondent Late Mohammad Maqbool Bhat was an employee of Military Engineering Service (MES for short), who lost his life in a mine blast on 19.01.1994. In the aforesaid mine blast, which was planted by the Terrorists to kill the Security Personnel, another colleague of the husband of the respondent herein, namely Ali Mohammad Hajam also died on spot. With regard to the incident, a case FIR No. 21 dated 19.01.1994, came to be registered at Police Station, Saddar Srinagar under Section 302/307 RPC read with Section 3(4) of TADA (P) Act and Section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act. The respondent was sanctioned a family pension by the petitioners vide PPO dated 31.08.1994. The respondent, who was claiming the benefit of Liberalised Pension Scheme, felt aggrieved by the payment of meagre family pension and, therefore, filed OA No. 62/116/2017 before the Tribunal, after a gap of 23 years. The aforesaid OA was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.02.2017, directing the petitioners herein to decide the representation of the respondent by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 04. In response with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioners herein, passed a consideration order, which was called in question by the respondent in OA No. 62/132/2018. Before the Tribunal, it was the stand taken by the petitioners herein that the death of husband of respondent had happened while he was not on active duty and, therefore, the respondent was Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document not entitled to the benefit of Liberalised Pensionary Scheme, issued vide office memo dated 09.04.1990 and modified vide office memo dated 03.02.2000. 05. The Tribunal having considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record, in particular the consolidated orders on Pensionary Awards in the case of death/disability as a result of attack by or during action against extremists, anti-social elements, etc., issued from time to time and came to the conclusion that the benefit of Liberalised Pensionary Scheme dated 03.02.2000 supra was available to the retirees, retired after 01.01.1986. The Tribunal also rejected the contention of the petitioners that only such employees of the Government of India, who had died or killed on active duty alone, were entitled to the benefit of the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme. The OA filed by the respondent was thus allowed and a direction was issued to the petitioners vide order impugned dated 19.02.2019 to grant the benefit of Liberalised Pensionary Scheme dated 03.02.2000 to the respondent. It is this order of the Tribunal, which is called in question before us by the petitioners in these proceedings, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 06. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is necessary to first notice few material facts, which are not disputed. The husband of the respondent, who was an employee of MES, died in a mine blast on 19.01.1994. The mine was planted by the Terrorists in order to kill the Security Personnel. The occurrence happened at Soiteng, Ganderbal. The husband of the respondent admittedly, was not on active duty, when the incident took place. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 07. Indisputably, on the date, when the husband of the respondent died, viz 19.01.1994, the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme, issued by the petitioner No. 1, vide office memo No. 33/5/89-P&PW(K) dated 09.04.1990, was in operation. The benefit of this Scheme was applicable to the Government servants, killed or disabled in the situations enumerated in para 3 of the Scheme. Para 3 of the Scheme being relevant is reproduced as under:- “ (3) Scope (1) These orders apply to Government servants killed or disabled. (a) as a result of action in international wars; (b) as a result of fighting in war-like operations or border skirmishes with any country; (c) while fighting against armed hostiles; (d) during laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also mines sweeping operations between one month before the commencement and three months after the conclusion of the operations; (e) as a result of attack by extremists, anti-social elements, etc., or during action against dacoits, smugglers, hostiles, etc.” (2) The benefits under these orders will be restricted only to those cases where the death/disability is directly caused by actual operations. The following illustrations are mentioned for guidance of sanctioning authorities to determine whether the benefits under the scheme are attracted or not. In case of any doubt cases shall be referred to the Deptt. of Pension & Pensioners’ welfare. Illustration I Officers of Income Tax/Custom/Excise/Police proceed to carry out a raid. If on the way, any member of the team meets with an accident while travelling in a public/private/official vehicle or otherwise, the family shall not be allowed the benefit of these orders as the injury/death in such a case is not due to any actual operation. However, if any officer/member of the raiding party gets killed/injured as a result of attack by members of the opposite party, family of such a civil servant shall be entitled to the benefits of the orders. Illustration II A team of Police/Armed Police members is deployed on duty during agitations. The agitation does not turn violent but the civil servant dies because of, say, heart failure, and not due to any attack by the crowd. The widow of such a civil servant shall not be entitled to the benefits of these orders. However, where a team of civil servants including police personnel are deployed to contain an agitation by extremists, etc., and death of any civil servant takes place as a result of violence during such an agitation, the widow of the deceased shall be entitled to the benefits under these orders. Illustration III Any anti-social element/extremist etc., deliberately kills/injuries any civil servant with a view to spread terror. The Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document widow of such a deceased civil servant shall be allowed the benefit of these orders. (3) If a Government servant having sustained an injury is invalided out of service with a disability pension under these orders but dies subsequently as a result of the same injury, he will be deemed to have been killed in action of the awards under these orders will be admissible to the family from the date following the date of his death.” (Underlined by us) 08. From the plain reading of Para 3 of the Scheme, it is evident that the case of the respondent does not fall under any of the contingencies mentioned therein. Sub para 2 of para 3 of the Scheme makes it further clear that the benefit of Liberalised Pensionary Scheme is available only to those cases where the death/disability is directly caused by actual operations. In the instant case, the husband of respondent was a civil employee, serving in MES and had not died on in any operational duties. It has not come on record as to how and in what connection, the deceased employee had gone to Soiteng, Ganderbal, where the unfortunate incident happened. The Liberalised Pensionary Scheme of 1990 was later modified by the petitioner No. 1, vide office memo dated 03.02.2000 supra, Category ‘D’ whereof is relevant and is set out below:- “ Category ‘D’ Death or disability attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, anti-social elements, etc., whether in their performance of duties or otherwise. Apart from cases of death or injury sustained by personnel of the Central Police Organizations while employed in aid of the civil administration in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrators, other public servants including Police personnel, etc., bomb blasts in public places or transport, indiscriminate shooting incidents, in public, etc., would be covered under this category.” 09. From reading of Category ‘D’, it would transpire that the earlier Liberalised Pensionary Scheme, issued in the year 1990 was made more liberal, so as to apply it to the cases of the death or disability attributable to acts of violence by Terrorists, anti-social elements etc., whether in Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document their performance of duties or otherwise. In view of clear provisions of office memo dated 03.02.2000, in particular Category ’D’, it is not necessary that the death of a Government employee attributable to the acts of violence by the Terrorists/anti-social elements, must be while on active duty to qualify for the special benefits envisaged under the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme of 2000. The expression “otherwise” is of wide connotation and includes within it even the cases where a person has died even when he may not be on active duty. However, the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme dated 03.02.2000, which is though referred to as the ‘Scheme for providing special benefits in the cases of death or disability in service’ was made effective, w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Para 6 of the Scheme is relevant for the purpose and is thus reproduced as under:- “6. These orders will be effective from 01.01.1996. The past cases of pre-1996 pensioners/family pensioners will be revised under the Dept.’s OM No. 45/86/97-P&PW(A)-part-II dated 27.10.1997. Such consolidated pension, shall, however, be subject to the provisions of the Dept.’s OM No. 45/10/98-P&PW(A) dated 17.12.1998.” 10. From para 6 of the Scheme of 2000, it is abundantly clear that the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme of 2000, is applicable to the cases of death and disability that takes place after 01.01.1996. The past cases of pre-1996, pensioners have been provided to be revised under Department’s O.M. No. 45/86/97-Pt. P&PW(A)-Pt II dated 27th October, 1997. Such consolidated pension is, however, made subject to the provisions of Department’s O.M. No. 45/10/98-P&PW (A) dated 17th December, 1998. 11. From the above, it is beyond any doubt that the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme dated 03.02.2000, is not applicable to the case of the respondent for the reason that the case of the respondent pertains to the year Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 1994 and is to be treated as case of pre-1996 family pensioner. It seems that the Tribunal was persuaded to rely upon the consolidated orders on pensionary awards produced by the respondent, in which the effective date has been mentioned as 01.01.1986 instead of 01.01.1996 as envisaged in the office memo dated 03.02.2000. We are not sure whether it was a case of a typographical mistake or some mischief on the part of respondent. We do not wish to go into this aspect of the matter for the reason that the issue involved pertains to a family pension of a person, who has lost her husband in a mine blast triggered by the militants. 12. For the forgoing reasons, we find merit in this petition, the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order and Judgment passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The respondent is held entitled to the family pension in terms of Department’s O.M. No. 45/86/97-P&PW(A)-Pt. II dated 27th October, 1997. Such consolidated pension payable to the respondent shall, however, be subject to Department’s O.M. No. 45/10/98-P&PW (A) dated 17.12.1998. We have issued this direction for the reason that we could not find anything on record as to whether the benefit of these office memorandums have been given to the respondent or not. This direction would inure to the benefit of the respondent only if such benefit has not already been conferred upon him. 13. Disposed of along with connected CM(s). WP(C) No. 2070/2022 01. The Union of India and six others, who are none other than the officers of petitioner No. 1, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to throw challenge to an order and Judgment dated Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 15.01.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench [“the Tribunal”] in OA No. 62/1385/2017 titled Misra Bano Vs. Union of India and Ors., whereby the Tribunal has quashed the order impugned in the OA and directed the petitioners herein to grant family pension to the respondent in terms of Special Pension Scheme, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare vide office memo No. 45/22/97-P&PW(C) dated 03.02.2000. 02. Before we proceed to consider the grounds of challenge, urged by Mr. Satinder Singh Kala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, we deem it appropriate to refer to brief facts, which are material to the disposal of this petition. 03. The husband of the respondent Late Ali Mohammad Hajam was an employee of Military Engineering Service (MES for short), who lost his life in a mine blast on 19.01.1994. In the aforesaid mine blast, which was planted by the Terrorists to kill the Security Personnel, another colleague of the husband of the respondent herein, namely Mohammad Maqbool Bhat also died on spot. With regard to the incident, a case FIR No. 21 dated 19.01.1994, came to be registered at Police Station, Saddar Srinagar under Section 302/307 RPC read with Section 3(4) of TADA (P) Act and Section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act. The respondent was sanctioned a family pension by the petitioners vide PPO dated 31.08.1994. The respondent, who was claiming the benefit of Liberalised Pension Scheme, felt aggrieved by the payment of meagre family pension and, therefore, filed OA No. 62/116/2017 before the Tribunal, after a gap of 23 years. The aforesaid OA Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.02.2017, directing the petitioners herein to decide the representation of the respondent by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 04. In response with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioners herein, passed a consideration order, which was called in question by the respondent in OA No. 62/1385/2017. Before the Tribunal, it was the stand taken by the petitioners herein that the death of husband of respondent had happened while he was not on active duty and, therefore, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Liberalised Pensionary Scheme, issued vide office memo dated 09.04.1990 and modified vide office memo dated 03.02.2000. 05. The Tribunal having considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record, in particular the consolidated orders on Pensionary Awards in the case of death/disability as a result of attack by or during action against extremists, anti-social elements, etc., issued from time to time and came to the conclusion that the benefit of Liberalised Pensionary Scheme dated 03.02.2000 supra was available to the retirees, retired after 01.01.1986. The Tribunal also rejected the contention of the petitioners that only such employees of the Government of India, who had died or killed on active duty alone, were entitled to the benefit of the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme. The OA filed by the respondent was thus allowed and a direction was issued to the petitioners vide order impugned dated 15.01.2020 to grant the benefit of Liberalised Pensionary Scheme dated 03.02.2000 to the respondent. It is this order of the Tribunal, which is called in question before Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document us by the petitioners in these proceedings, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 06. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, it is necessary to first notice few material facts, which are not disputed. The husband of the respondent, who was an employee of MES, died in a mine blast on 19.01.1994. The mine was planted by the Terrorists in order to kill the Security Personnel. The occurrence happened at Soiteng, Ganderbal. The husband of the respondent admittedly, was not on active duty, when the incident took place. 07. Indisputably, on the date, when the husband of the respondent died, viz 19.01.1994, the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme, issued by the petitioner No. 1, vide office memo No. 33/5/89-P&PW(K) dated 09.04.1990, was in operation. The benefit of this Scheme was applicable to the Government servants, killed or disabled in the situations enumerated in para 3 of the Scheme. Para 3 of the Scheme being relevant is reproduced as under:- “ (3) Scope (1) These orders apply to Government servants killed or disabled. (a) as a result of action in international wars; (b) as a result of fighting in war-like operations or border skirmishes with any country; (c) while fighting against armed hostiles; (d) during laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also mines sweeping operations between one month before the commencement and three months after the conclusion of the operations; (e) as a result of attack by extremists, anti-social elements, etc., or during action against dacoits, smugglers, hostiles, etc.” (2) The benefits under these orders will be restricted only to those cases where the death/disability is directly caused by actual operations. The following illustrations are mentioned for guidance of sanctioning authorities to determine whether the benefits under the scheme are attracted or not. In case of any doubt cases shall be referred to the Deptt. of Pension & Pensioners’ welfare. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Illustration I Officers of Income Tax/Custom/Excise/Police proceed to carry out a raid. If on the way, any member of the team meets with an accident while travelling in a public/private/official vehicle or otherwise, the family shall not be allowed the benefit of these orders as the injury/death in such a case is not due to any actual operation. However, if any officer/member of the raiding party gets killed/injured as a result of attack by members of the opposite party, family of such a civil servant shall be entitled to the benefits of the orders. Illustration II A team of Police/Armed Police members is deployed on duty during agitations. The agitation does not turn violent but the civil servant dies because of, say, heart failure, and not due to any attack by the crowd. The widow of such a civil servant shall not be entitled to the benefits of these orders. However, where a team of civil servants including police personnel are deployed to contain an agitation by extremists, etc., and death of any civil servant takes place as a result of violence during such an agitation, the widow of the deceased shall be entitled to the benefits under these orders. Illustration III Any anti-social element/extremist etc., deliberately kills/injuries any civil servant with a view to spread terror. The widow of such a deceased civil servant shall be allowed the benefit of these orders. (3) If a Government servant having sustained an injury is invalided out of service with a disability pension under these orders but dies subsequently as a result of the same injury, he will be deemed to have been killed in action of the awards under these orders will be admissible to the family from the date following the date of his death.” (Underlined by us) 08. From the plain reading of Para 3 of the Scheme, it is evident that the case of the respondent does not fall under any of the contingencies mentioned therein. Sub para 2 of para 3 of the Scheme makes it further clear that the benefit of Liberalised Pensionary Scheme is available only to those cases where the death/disability is directly caused by actual operations. In the instant case, the husband of respondent was a civil employee, serving in MES and had not died on in any operational duties. It has not come on record as to how and in what connection, the deceased employee had gone to Soiteng, Ganderbal, where the unfortunate incident happened. The Liberalised Pensionary Scheme of 1990 was later modified by the petitioner Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document No. 1, vide office memo dated 03.02.2000 supra, Category ‘D’ whereof is relevant and is set out below:- “ Category ‘D’ Death or disability attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, anti-social elements, etc., whether in their performance of duties or otherwise. Apart from cases of death or injury sustained by personnel of the Central Police Organizations while employed in aid of the civil administration in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrators, other public servants including Police personnel, etc., bomb blasts in public places or transport, indiscriminate shooting incidents, in public, etc., would be covered under this category.” 09. From reading of Category ‘D’, it would transpire that the earlier Liberalised Pensionary Scheme, issued in the year 1990 was made more liberal, so as to apply it to the cases of the death or disability attributable to acts of violence by Terrorists, anti-social elements etc., whether in their performance of duties or otherwise. In view of clear provisions of office memo dated 03.02.2000, in particular Category ’D’, it is not necessary that the death of a Government employee attributable to the acts of violence by the Terrorists/anti-social elements, must be while on active duty to qualify for the special benefits envisaged under the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme of 2000. The expression “otherwise” is of wide connotation and includes within it even the cases where a person has died even when he may not be on active duty. However, the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme dated 03.02.2000, which is though referred to as the ‘Scheme for providing special benefits in the cases of death or disability in service’ was made effective, w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Para 6 of the Scheme is relevant for the purpose and is thus reproduced as under:- “6. These orders will be effective from 01.01.1996. The past cases of pre-1996 pensioners/family pensioners will be revised under the Dept.’s OM No. 45/86/97-P&PW(A)-part-II dated 27.10.1997. Such consolidated pension, shall, however, be subject to the provisions of the Dept.’s OM No. 45/10/98-P&PW(A) dated 17.12.1998.” Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 10. From para 6 of the Scheme of 2000, it is abundantly clear that the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme of 2000, is applicable to the cases of death and disability that takes place after 01.01.1996. The past cases of pre-1996, pensioners have been provided to be revised under Department’s O.M. No. 45/86/97-Pt. P&PW(A)-Pt II dated 27th October, 1997. Such consolidated pension is, however, made subject to the provisions of Department’s O.M. No. 45/10/98-P&PW (A) dated 17th December, 1998. 11. From the above, it is beyond any doubt that the Liberalised Pensionary Scheme dated 03.02.2000, is not applicable to the case of the respondent for the reason that the case of the respondent pertains to the year 1994 and is to be treated as case of pre-1996 family pensioner. It seems that the Tribunal was persuaded to rely upon the consolidated orders on pensionary awards produced by the respondent, in which the effective date has been mentioned as 01.01.1986 instead of 01.01.1996 as envisaged in the office memo dated 03.02.2000. We are not sure whether it was a case of a typographical mistake or some mischief on the part of respondent. We do not wish to go into this aspect of the matter for the reason that the issue involved pertains to a family pension of a person, who has lost her husband in a mine blast triggered by the militants. 12. For the forgoing reasons, we find merit in this petition, the same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order and Judgment passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The respondent is held entitled to the family pension in terms of Department’s O.M. No. 45/86/97-P&PW(A)-Pt. II dated 27th October, 1997. Such consolidated pension payable to the respondent shall, however, be subject to Department’s O.M. No. 45/10/98-P&PW (A) dated Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 17.12.1998. We have issued this direction for the reason that we could not find anything on record as to whether the benefit of these office memorandums have been given to the respondent or not. This direction would inure to the benefit of the respondent only if such benefit has not already been conferred upon him. 13. Disposed of along with connected CM(s). (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 22.05.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Whether the ORDER is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document