MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON SMT. RUKMINA V/S THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, April 26 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on March 25:

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision dated 29.03.2023; whereby the Armed Forces Tribunal by striking down the discharge of the petitioner's late husband and holding that petitioner is entitled to arrears of service pension of late husband, however, has restricted the period to three years preceding to the date of the order and has also not granted any interest on the said amount.

2. The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India submits that by a subsequent order dated 19.07.2023 the Tribunal has clarified the reasons for restricting it to three years preceding to the date of passing of order and non-grant of interest.

3. Perusal of order dated 19.07.2023 shows the reasons given are as under :-

"1. Based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] , the applicant claims that the relief granted should be made applicable to him prior to three years from the date of filing of the application and not prior to three years from the date of order of this Tribunal.

2. While restricting the claim of the applicant to three years prior to the date of the order, we have applied the principle that delay on any order passed by the Tribunal should not adversely affect or cause harm to any of the parties. The time taken during the pendency of the judicial proceedings should not adversely affect the right of the parties.

3. In this case, the delay accrued on account of the pendency of the matter before the 'Tribunal on account of various reasons. which is neither attributable to the applicant nor to the non-applicants. Under these circumstances, applying the principle of law, to the effect that pendency of the matter should not affect any. party without an. appropriate cause, we are restricting grant. of relief to a period of three years prior to the date of passing of the relevant order and not three years prior to the date of filing of the application"

4. The Tribunal has held that the principle that delay on any order passed by the Tribunal should not adversely affect any of the parties has been applied and the time taken during pendency of judicial proceedings would not be adversely affect the rights of any of the parties.

5 . We are of the view that the Tribunal has erred in applying the said principle to the facts of the case. The Tribunal has categorically held that the delay in disposal of the matter has occurred on account of pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal and neither the petitioner nor the respondents have caused the delay. Though the Tribunal has held that neither of the parties should suffer, however, by the impugned order admittedly petitioner is one who is the sufferer as the period to which the petitioner has held entitled for family pension, has been curtailed.

6. In the instant case, the husband of petitioner was serving in the Army and has served for 14 years 8 months and 29 days when his services were terminated. Had husband of petitioner would have permitted to continue for another few months, he would have completed 15 years of pensionary rule service.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2025/MP/2407/MP_2407_2025_FinalOrder_25-03-2026_digi.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.