JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has laid claim to benefit of special family pension as envisaged under the Air Force Pension Rules. The basis of claiming special family pension is that her husband was serving as Fitter, Mechanical Transport (FMT) in the Indian Airforce. At the time of admittence to the service in 1965, he was categorised in the medical category 'AYE' denoting that he was physically fully fit. During the service, he served at different Air Force Stations/Units and rose to the rank of Sergeant. He was regularly subjected to thorough Medical Examinations during the service and was found fit in medical category 'AYE' at every stage. At no such occasion, such disease as Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) was ever detected at any point of time. 3. On the fateful day, on 17th July, 1987 when the petitioner's husband was posted at No. 8, Base Repair Depot Air Force, Avadi (Tamil Nadu), he suffered a heart attack at about 7.20 AM just before his duty period was to commence at 7.30 AM and died on that very day. 4. Ordinarily, when a member of Air Force service dies in harness, his family became entitled to 'Special Family Pension'. While releasing regular pension to the widow, her claim to 'special family pension' was denied inter alia on the ground that from the available documents FLT LT, the sanctioning authority, has decided that death of deceased was not attributable to or aggravated by Air Force Service. However, no specific reason medical or otherwise was stated in the order dated 23.9.1988 (Annex.2) communicating denial of special family pension to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner filed appeal against rejection of claim to special family pension under the Rules albeit after the prescribed period of limitation which was not decided for long. The dealy in deciding the appeal led to filing of SB Civil Writ Petition.No. 4429/93. The said writ petition was decided on 24.2.95. 5. The petitioner filed appeal against rejection of claim to special family pension under the Rules albeit after the prescribed period of limitation which was not decided for long. The dealy in deciding the appeal led to filing of SB Civil Writ Petition.No. 4429/93. The said writ petition was decided on 24.2.95. Accepting that the petitioner being an illeterate lady, delay In filing the appeal might have occurred and the respondents had also shown their willingness to decide the appeal on merit, the petition was disposed off with direction of the respondents to decide the appeal on merit within three months and if the appeal is not decided within three months or if already decided, the petitioner will have a right to approach the Court against the said order. 6. In pursuance thereof, vide the impugned order dated 14th July, 1995 (Annex.8), the appeal was decided. The claim to special family pension was rejected stating that death of husband of the petitioner who died on 17.7.87 was due to Fatal Disease Ischaemic Heart Disease which was considered unrelated to the Airforce service. The fatal disease Ischaemic Heart Disease is a constitutional disease. In the case of deceased no undue stress or strain due to service prior to onset of the fatal disease was involved and as such his death was not in any way on account of factors attributable to or aggravated by service. 7. Hence this petition. 8. Learned counsel for the parties has invited my attention to the relevant Rules and guidelines issued in this Regard.Rule 189 of Pension Regulations for the Air Force Part I (1961 Edition) states that special family pension may be granted to the family of an individual if his death was due to or has caused by a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to Air Force Service; or due to aggravation by the Air Force Service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during Air Force service. 9. It is not a case of any wound or injury and therefore the reading of rule is confined to the death caused on account of disease. It is not in dispute that at the time of entering the service, the petitioner was categorised as 'AYE' as fully medically fit and subsequent thereto, by no medical officer or for any reason, he was detected with any medical disease. It is not in dispute that at the time of entering the service, the petitioner was categorised as 'AYE' as fully medically fit and subsequent thereto, by no medical officer or for any reason, he was detected with any medical disease. On this premise, it was pointed out that under the Rules, it has to be admitted that the disease on account of which death was caused, had arisen during service. The ordinary presumption in such circumstances, is in favour of the claimant that death was aggravacted during service, unless otherwise proved by the authority denying such claim. 10. The infarction or heart related disease has been included in the disease enumerated in Annexure appended to the Rules as diseases which are affected by. stress and strain. Regard must also be had to the time factor in determining the counsel correlation between the disease and strain and stress of service. 11. While any disease know to be affected by stress and strain have been included in the enumeration of diseases on account of which, if death is caused, special family pension may be granted, on it being related to the service in Air force, it has been emphasised that benefit of any doubt in respect of beneficial provision must go to the claimants and not to the authority. It would be apposite here to quote the relevants guidelines in this regard given in Para 7 of the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence: (i) Common disease known to be affected by stress and strain. This should be decided with due reference to the nature of the duties an individual has had to perform in military service. It may be that in some cases, the individual had been engaged on sedentary duties when they will normally not quality. (ii) In deciding on the issue of entitlement all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial will be taken into account and the benefit of reasonable doubt will be given to the claimant. This benefit will be given more liberally in filed service cases. 12. Liberal construction of causes resulting in disability or death has been repeated again and again while laying down the guidelines for determining percentage disabilities for claim, as well as in the claim relating to disabilities. This benefit will be given more liberally in filed service cases. 12. Liberal construction of causes resulting in disability or death has been repeated again and again while laying down the guidelines for determining percentage disabilities for claim, as well as in the claim relating to disabilities. Clause (2) of the Guidelines further reads that disablement or death is accepted as due to Airforce service provided it is certified that it arose during Airforce service and remains aggraveted thereby. It also envisages the certification that the death or disablement was caused or hastened by a disease which was attributable to airforce service and the aggravation has been by airforce service and disease had been caused or arisen during airforce service. 13. The aforesaid scheme of rules makes it abundantly clear that the special family pension is granted on account of death caused of an employee of air force while in service where the disease arises during airforce service and has remained aggravated thereby and it was due to or hastened by the airforce service. 14. In this regard, clause 2(a) (b) (c) and (d) of Appendix II appended to Pension Regulations for Air Force may be noticed: "In respect of diseases, the following rules will be observed:- (a) Cases, in which it is established that conditions of Air Force Service did not determine or contribute to the onset of the disease but influenced the subsequent course of the disease, will fall for acceptance on the basis of aggravation. (b) A disease which has led to an individual's discharge or death will ordinarily be deemed to have arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of the individual's acceptance for air force service. However, if medical opinion holds, for reasons to be stated, that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service the disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service. (c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of Air Force Service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in air force service. (c) If a disease is accepted as having arisen in service, it must also be established that the conditions of Air Force Service determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in air force service. (d) In considering whether a particular disease is due to Air Force Service it is necessary to relate the established facts in the aetiolog of the disease, and of its normal development, to the effect that conditions of service e.g., exposure, stress, climate etc., may have had no its manifestation. Regard must also be had to the time factor." 15. Clause (b) envisages presumption about disease having arisen in service if no note of it was made at the time of individual's acceptance in service, unless medical opinion holds otherwise by recording reason therefor that the disease could not have been detected on examination prior to acceptance of individual in service: This is not the case in hand. Hence, it ha3 to be accepted and has not been deined that heart disease of the husband of petitioner had arisen during service. 16. Clause (a), significantly, explains that even in case where setting of disease may not be related to contribution from service, still if it can influence the subsequent course of disease, the case may fall within the acceptance of aggravation. 17. In the present case, when the cause of disease which resulted in death of husband of the petitioner is attributed to strain or stress, it is onset in service, even if it can be assumed for the sake of argument that service did not contribute in setting of disease, it cannot be said that after the disease has set, the continued normal stress and strain of service would not have contributed to its aggravation. 18. Clause (d) further envisages taking into consideration the time factor when it cannot be said at what time heart disease exactly commenced its progression since commencement takes place with regular strain or stress. It is a matter of common knowledge that heart attack is manifestation of the existing disease whose progression affects functioning of heart adversely. 18. Clause (d) further envisages taking into consideration the time factor when it cannot be said at what time heart disease exactly commenced its progression since commencement takes place with regular strain or stress. It is a matter of common knowledge that heart attack is manifestation of the existing disease whose progression affects functioning of heart adversely. In these circumstances, clause (a), (b), and (d) read together unmistakably brings the case of death of petitioner husband within the ambit of a case where disease was set in during the service and even if the service may not have contributed to setting of disease it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that after the disease has set, continuous stress or strain of service with ordinary scale assaults in aggravating the disease. Even if there may he doubt in the absence of finding as to time when disease actually set it, it c fight to have been resolved in favour of the claimant. 19. The aforesaid provision coupled with the common medical opinion certifying that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance in service, leads to an irresistible conclusion that the disease viz. Ischaemic Heart Disease must be deemed to have been contacted by the individual while he was serving in airforce and in my opinion rightly, the respondents have not even tried to deny this position that the disease was contacted while he was in airforce service. 20. The aforesaid provisions, if read together, leads to further inference that where a person dies after acceptance in airforce service without detecting of any disease at that time of admittance to service and he dies while in service on account of disease which is included in the schedule, it is presumed to have been caused on account of stress and strain, ordinarily arising from discharing of the duties and entitles his widow or dependents to claim special family pension unless it is denied on some cogent grounds which will be demonstrated by some material to reach a conclusion otherwise. This is so because there is a mandate to lean in favour of the claimants liberally for release of special family pension in case of death, in case of any doubt. 21. This is so because there is a mandate to lean in favour of the claimants liberally for release of special family pension in case of death, in case of any doubt. 21. In the present case, while in the order rejecting the claim to special family pension dated '.4.7.95 (Annex.8) no specific ground has been stated except a bald assertion that the disease was not caused due to conditions relating to Airforce service. In appeal, it was stated that the disease was constitutional and not attributable to the airforce service. One is left free to grope in dark what is conveyed by a disease which is constitutional. The fact that the incumbent died on the very date he suffered a heart attack, does not lead to any inference whether the disease was contacted on that date or for some longer duration the body was simmering inside without any clinical symptoms, but damaging the functioning of heart leading to a point that it first manifestation proved fatal. There cannot be any assumption that the disease was spontaneous and was not in existence for a time notwithstanding its late manifestation and disease being constitutional. 22. The two orders, basic and appellate do not give any clue. The very fact that the question has to be decided after taking multiple objectives, considerations and it being a beneficial provision must ordinarily constituted to lean in favour of claimants. Mere repetition of the words of the guidelines would not suffice to sustain denial of claim when it could not be denied that the disease was acquired during the continuance of the service after the incumbent was admitted to service. It is also not the genus of the Rules or the guidelines that what amount of stress or strain in the functioning can be considered as attrituable to causing of disease or aggravating a disease during service. It must necessarily be a factor differing from person to person that what amount of stress and strain may lead to the heart ailment. A person with sedantary living can still succumb to heart aliment, therefore, no presumption can be drawn against the incumbent because he has died of first heart attack, the strain and strain of the work which he is discharging for last so many years can in any circumstance have its effect on its heart condition. 23. A person with sedantary living can still succumb to heart aliment, therefore, no presumption can be drawn against the incumbent because he has died of first heart attack, the strain and strain of the work which he is discharging for last so many years can in any circumstance have its effect on its heart condition. 23. The conclusion drawn by the original authority as well as by the appellate authority are not supported by any material on which their conclusions have been founded nor any medical expert opinion has been produced to support the cause of death stated in the death certificate as referred to in reply or placed on record to opine on a technical issue whether the cause of disease which is a matter of expert opinion, might have resulted in his death, could not have been caused due to stress or strain of duties what he was discharging at different times. 24. The decided cases from different High Court including this Court has occasion to consider the scheme of special family pension and are unanimous on the question that it is for the Department to place on record a proof otherwise to support denial of special family pension in case death is caused on account of disease suffered during the course of employment and if it is not done, the claim to special family pension cannot be denied. 25. It may be noticed that while impugned orders do not say that the duties of the petitioner, who was employed as a Fitter, Mechanical Transport was of supervisory nature and effort was made in reply to present as if the petitioner's husband duty was of supervisory nature only being a Store Keeper with two assistants. However, apart from the fact that it appears to be an improvement over the reasons stated in the orders, it is made to deny the claim of special family pension by stating that strain and stress should be the cause of death or disease. Stress and strain over a period of time can equally be responsible for setting in of disease and in its aggravation. One of the major considerations required for deciding the corelation between the disease and the airforce service is the time factor. It is not the case of the appellate order that the disease was caused on account of sedantary duties. One of the major considerations required for deciding the corelation between the disease and the airforce service is the time factor. It is not the case of the appellate order that the disease was caused on account of sedantary duties. He has served the Air Force for almost 22 years as a trained Mechanical Fitter and even at the time of working at repair Depot, the presumption, if any is in favour of the petitioner that her husband was not employed at a place where his duties were sedantary. It is not incorrect to infer that while 25 discharing the duties at automobile repair work, he may be employed where a lot of physical activities was required in maintaining and repairing the automobiles of the airforce of different kinds. The duties at repair and maintenance of automobile depot in ordinary course, cannot be treated to be sedantary in nature. 26. In Madhavi Amma Vs. Union of India (1992)1 SLJ ; the Kerala High Court was facing with a case in which the incubment who was a sepoy in army died of heart attack on 26.12.1975 and the cause of death was assessed to be actute left ventricular failure following coronary occlusion. The benefit of special family pension was denied on the ground that the cause of death was neither attributable to military service or aggravated by military service. The Court allowed the petition by holding that no evidence has been placed to show that the death was occurred for reasons not attributable to his duties and it was to be presumed that the cause of death of deceased was attributable to his employment (military service) or aggravated by military service. The respondents have not produced any material to show that the cause of death was not connected with military service or aggravation is not attributable to the service. This was also a case in which the petitioner was admitted to service with no medical note to the contrary about any disease being found in his persons. 27. In coming to the conclusion, the Kerala High Court has referred to an earlier Bench decision, of the Kerala High Court in M/s Dev Shi Bhanji Khona v. mary Burno 1985 KLJ 104 ; in which case also the workman suffering from heart disease who fell down while on work spot and died. 27. In coming to the conclusion, the Kerala High Court has referred to an earlier Bench decision, of the Kerala High Court in M/s Dev Shi Bhanji Khona v. mary Burno 1985 KLJ 104 ; in which case also the workman suffering from heart disease who fell down while on work spot and died. It was held that there was a casual connection between the employment and his death in the unexpected way. Therefore, it was held that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. The Division Bench has also held that due to over-exertion for a long time, which a person who was having heart disease could not have withstood, he fell down, and that resulted in his death, which might not have happened otherwise. 28. The reference is also made to the decision of Delhi High Court in Satpal Singh v. Union of India 1999(4) SCT 23 ; of Punjab High Court in Union of India v. Bodan Lal Yadav 1994(10) SLR 390 ; and Col. M.L. Shetty v. Union of Indian 1998(2) SCT 228 , from Jammu and Kashmir High Court wherein like circumstances where a person died of heart attack while in service and no note of such disability was made at the time of entry in Air Force service that he was suffering from such disability, the Courts allowed all the claims raised for special family pension. 29. Relying on the aforesaid decision, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ex.Sgt. Telpal Singh Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors. 2004(3) WLC (Raj.) 190 , where the claim was denied in the like circumstance as are in the present case, has allowed the writ petition by setting aside the rejection of claim to special family pension raising a presumption in favour of the petitioner that the disease suffered by him was attributed to and aggravated on account of Air Force Service. 30. Another decision in Smt. Jeth Kanwar v. Union of India & Ors. 30. Another decision in Smt. Jeth Kanwar v. Union of India & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 566/92 decided on 20th November, 1996 was also placed for my perusal in which case a soldier in the military service had died due to some kind of malignancy and his moth; was denied specie; family pension for the like reasons as are in the present case that the disease was cause of death was not attributable to the services rendered by the deceased. The court accepted the reasons and held that no expert opinion of medical evidence has been brought on record by the respondents to establish this assertion. In the absence of any proof of the fact that the disease was not attributable to the service rendered by the deceased, it cannot be said that a man who has died during period of active service did not contact and got it aggravated during the period of his service under the conditions of service. 31. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that there being no dispute about the fact that the disease was contacted while husband of the petitioner was placed on different places and otherwise has not been proved by the respondents by placing on record any cogent material which has not even been referred to in the orders, the claim to special family pension cannot be denied merely by bald assertions that the disease was not aggravated because of the service rendered by the petitioner in airforce. 32. As a result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders rejecting the claim to special family pension on account of death of the petitioner's husband while in service on account of Ischemic Heart Disease are quashed and the respondents are directed to compute the special family pension under the rules payable to the petitioner by treating her to be eligible for such pension. The arrears of such pension shall be released to the petitioner as determined within a period of four months from the date of producing this order before the competent authority. 33. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******