Serial No. 16 Regular Cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 3352/2023 Khaliq Akhter ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Bilal Ahmad Malla, Advocate V/s Union of India and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI with Ms. RahanaQayoom, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE (ORDER) 28.05.2025 01. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order and Judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Srinagar at Jammu [‘AFT’] in transfer application No. 01/2020 (SWP No. 2006/2017) titled Mst. Khaliq Akhter Vs. Union of India and Ors. 02. The impugned Judgment is challenged by the petitioner on multiple grounds,however, during the course of arguments, it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that how could the petitioner claim the pensionary benefits in respect of her deceased husband, who at the time of his death was stated to be a Member of Armed Forces of the Union of India, unless the dismissal, on account of his desertion, is specifically called in question. In the writ petition, which was disposed of by the AFT in terms of the impugned Judgment, the petitioner had simply sought a writ of Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document mandamus to direct the respondents herein to settle the pensionary claim and other benefits of the petitioner within a time frame. 03. In the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, the claim of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner was refuted on the ground that the husband of the petitioner stood dismissed from Armed services as a deserter and, therefore, the petitioner claiming to be his wife was not entitled to any gratuity or pensionary benefits. 04. Ordinarily, in the face of aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner, if aggrieved, should have either amended the petition or filed a fresh one after withdrawing the pending petition. This, however, has not been done by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the AFT was correct in arriving at a conclusion that in view of the dismissal of the husband of the petitioner as deserter, the petitioner was not entitled to any gratuity or pensionary benefits. 05. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. We, however, provide that dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to challenge the dismissal of her husband as a deserter and claim the pensionary benefits by filing a fresh petition. We further direct that in the event a fresh petition is filed before the AFT by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today, the limitation shall not be pressed against the petitioner. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 28.05.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document