Per M.M. Kumar. C.J.;— 1. The instant appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Union of India, Chief of the Army Staff and an other officer, is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.2.2010 rendered in OWP No. 393/2006 holding that the writ petitioner-respondent is entitled to grant of Liberalized Family Pension in terms of Part-II Para 4.1 Category "D" & "E" of the letter dated 31.1.2001 issued by the appellants. 2. The learned Single Judge has held that the writ petitioner-respondent is entitled to grant of Liberalized Family Pension on the principal ground that husband of the petitioner Lt. Col. A.S. Sidhu was deputed to operation known as 'Operation Parakaram' which was duly notified by the Govt. of India. It has been found that two conditions are required to be fulfilled to become entitled to Liberalized Family Pension. According to the learned Single Judge both the conditions stood fulfilled because Lt. Col A. S. Sidhu suffered death which was attributable to the military service and the said operation was notified by the Govt. of India. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernable from the following paras of the impugned judgment which reads thus: "It is not in dispute that petitioner's husband was deputed to Operation Parakaram which was notified by the Government. The medical certificate issued by the respondents indicates that the death was attributable to the military service. The contention of the respondents is that Operation Parakaram was not a war like situation as the persons deputed therein were not restricted to move out of the area which was notified, as such. Special Family Pension was paid to the petitioner. The facts are not in dispute. Husband of the petitioner admittedly, was deputed to an operation which was notified by the government and his death was attributable to the military service. In order to be entitled to receive the Liberalized Family Pension only two conditions are required to be satisfied, which the petitioner had clearly established. The contention of the respondents that it was not a war like situation is absolutely fallacious. As already stated, more than 600 officers and soldiers died in the operation and it was a war like situation. Husband of the petitioner was deputed to the operation despite the fact that he was suffering from heart ailment. The contention of the respondents that it was not a war like situation is absolutely fallacious. As already stated, more than 600 officers and soldiers died in the operation and it was a war like situation. Husband of the petitioner was deputed to the operation despite the fact that he was suffering from heart ailment. As a result of officer's deputation to an area because of exposure to hostile work environment and extreme weather conditions his ailment aggravated resulting in his death. For the reasons, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to grant Liberalized Family Pension to the petitioner from the date her husband has died, within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is supplied to them. In case the needful is not done within the period of three months, respondents will pay interest at the rate of 9% on the withheld pension amount." (emphasis added) 3. Mr. Pangotra learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the learned Single Judge by arguing that the death of Lt. Col A.S. Sidhu, husband of the writ petitioner-respondent was not covered by category "E" specified in the letter dated 31.1.2001. According to the learned counsel, in order to acquire right of payment under the Liberalized Family Pension it was required to be shown that the death was caused on account of enemy action in international war, action during deployment with a peace keeping mission abroad, border skirmishes, during laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also minesweeping operations, on account of accidental explosions of mines while laying operationally oriented mine-filed or lifting or negotiating mine-filed laid by the enemy or own forces in operational areas near international border or the line of control, war like situations, including cases which are attributable to or aggravated by: extremist acts, exploding mines etc, while on way to an operational area, battle inoculation training exercises on demonstration with live ammunition, kidnapped by extremists while on operational duty, an act of violence or attack by extremists, anti social elements etc while on operational duty, action against extremists, antisocial elements as is envisaged in para 4.1 category "E" of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, letter dated 31.1.2001. Mr. of India, Ministry of Defence, letter dated 31.1.2001. Mr. Pangotra has vehementally argued that the case of the respondent writ petitioner is not covered by category "E" and she was entitled to the special family pension and not the Liberalized Family Pension. The learned counsel has also submitted that the 'Operation Parkaram' was nothing but mobilization of the Army Units and did not contemplate any war or security of any officer or Jawan. The death of the husband of the writ petitioner-respondent was due to heart disease. He was covered under category "B" and his widow has been rightly given the special family pension. 4. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the considered view that this appeal is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. 5. In order to resolve the controversy and the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be necessary to examine the letter dated 31.1.2001 which has been placed on record as Annexure-C. According to para 6 of the letter dated 31.1.2001, Liberalized Family Pension is admissible in case of death of an Armed Forces Personnel under the circumstances mentioned in category "D" and "E" of para 4.1. The aforesaid para 6 would read thus: "6. Liberalized Family Pension (LFP) 6.1 In case of death of an Armed Forces Personnel under the circumstances mentioned in category "D" & "E" of para 4.1 above, the eligible member of the family shall be entitled to Liberalized Family Pension equal to reckon-able emoluments last drawn as defined in para 3.1. above, both for officers and PBOR. Liberalized Family Pension at this rate shall be admissible to the widow in the case of officers and to the nominated heir in the case of PBOR until death or disqualification. 6.2. If the Armed Forces Personnel is not survived by widow but. is survived by child/children only, all children together shall be eligible for Liberalized Family Pension at the rate equal to 60% reckonable emoluments as defined in para 5.2. Liberalized Family Pension shall be payable to the child/children for the period during which they would have been eligible as in the case of Special Family Pension. The Liberalized Family Pension shall be paid to the senior most eligible child at a time. On his/her death/disqualification it will pass on to next eligible child. Liberalized Family Pension shall be payable to the child/children for the period during which they would have been eligible as in the case of Special Family Pension. The Liberalized Family Pension shall be paid to the senior most eligible child at a time. On his/her death/disqualification it will pass on to next eligible child. The provision of para 5.3 (except rate) will be applicable here also. 6.3.... 6.4., 6.5., 6.6., 6. A perusal of the aforesaid extracts of para 6 would show that in order to earn Liberalized Family Pension death of an Armed Forces Personnel must have occurred under the circumstances mentioned in category "D" & "E" of para 4.1. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to read para 4.1 along with category "D" & "E" and the same is reproduced herein under for facility of reference: "PART II PENSIONARY BENEFITS ON DEATH/DISABILITY IN ATTRIBUTABLE/AGGRAVATED CASES. 4.1. For determining the pensionary benefits for death or disability under different circumstances due to attributable/aggravated causes, the cases will be broadly categorized as follows. Category A................................. Category B................................. Category C................................. Category D Death or disability due to acts of violence/attack by terrorists, anti-social elements, etc whether on duty other than operational duty or even when not on duty. Bomb blasts in public places or transport, indiscriminate shooting incidents in public etc would be covered under this category, besides death/disability occurring while employed in the aid of civil power in dealing with natural calamities. Category E Death or disability arising as a result of: (a) enemy action in international war (b) action during deployment with a peace keeping mission abroad. (c) Border skirmishes (d) During laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines as also minesweeping operations. (e) On account of accidental explosions of mines while laying operationally oriented mine-filled or lifting or negotiation mine-filled laid by the enemy or own forces in operational areas near international border or the line of control. (f) War like situations, including cases which are attributable to aggravated by: (i) extremist acts exploding mines etc while on way to an operational area. (ii) Battle inoculation training exercises on demonstration with live ammunition. (iii) Kidnapping by extremists while on operational duty. (g) An act of violence/attack by extremists, anti social elements etc while on operational duty. (f) War like situations, including cases which are attributable to aggravated by: (i) extremist acts exploding mines etc while on way to an operational area. (ii) Battle inoculation training exercises on demonstration with live ammunition. (iii) Kidnapping by extremists while on operational duty. (g) An act of violence/attack by extremists, anti social elements etc while on operational duty. (h) Action against extremists, antisocial elements etc Death/disability while employed in the aid of civil power in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrators will be covered under this category, (j) Operations specially notified by the Govt. from time to time." 7. A perusal of the circumstances given under category "E" would show that if the death or disability has arisen as a result of operation, specially notified by the Govt. from time to time, Liberalized Family Pension becomes payable to an Armed forces Personnel. 8. We find that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the 'Operation Parkaram' was specially notified by the Govt. and therefore clause (j) of category "E" would be attracted to cover the case of the writ petitioner-respondent. In para 10 of the writ petition, specific averment has been made by the writ petitioner-respondent that Lt. Col. A.S Sidhu died as a result of posting in operational area of 'Operation Parakaram' which was specially notified operation of the Govt. In corresponding paras or any other paras of the objections filled by the appellants, the case set up by the writ petition-respondent has not been controverted. Para 10 of the writ petition and that of the reply are set out below which would show that the appellants have not controverted that the 'Operation Parakaram' was specially notified operation by the Govt. Para 10 of the writ petition and reply thereof are reproduced below: "10. That the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by category "E" (f)(j) as the death of the husband of the petitioner had occurred as a result of his posting in operational area in operation "Parakaram" which was a notified operation by the Government of India. Para 10 of the writ petition and reply thereof are reproduced below: "10. That the case of the petitioner was squarely covered by category "E" (f)(j) as the death of the husband of the petitioner had occurred as a result of his posting in operational area in operation "Parakaram" which was a notified operation by the Government of India. 9-10 That in reply to paras 9 & 10 of the petition it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is asking for Liberalized Family Pension (LFP) and claiming death of her husband under Cat E. Death of her husband took place due to Heart failure and not due to enemy action, deployment with peace keeping mission, boarder skirmishes, during laying or clearance of mines including enemy mines on account of explosions or in war like situations i.e Extremist acts/battle inoculation/kidnapping by extremists while on operational duty/Act of violence/attack by extremist anti social element/Action against extremist or in operation. (Refer Para 4.1 category E of Govt. of India MOD letter No: 1.(2)/97/D (Pen-C) dated 31st Jan 2001. Hence mere presence of demise of any person, be on deployment or employment, whether in operational area otherwise does not bestow upon in the status of E Cat i.e Liberalized Family Pension (LFP). Hence this case is not covered under category E." 9. We are further of the view that from the letter dated 29.10.2004, it has been clearly mentioned that that Lt. Col. A.S. Sidhu suffered death on account of act attributed to military service. It has also been pointed out that the death of Lt. Col A. S.Sidhu was caused while rendering military service who was deployed on Operation Parakaram. This appears from the aforesaid letter which reads thus: "12. Do you consider the Disability/death is Attributable to service? (Give reasons)Attributable to military service. 13. Do you consider the Disability/death aggravated by service ? (Give reasons): Yes, the Officer was posted to HQ 92 Inf. Bde which was deployed in 'OP' PARAKRAM" 10. From the above discussion it has been seen that the case of the writ petitioner-respondent is squarely covered by clause "f & j of category "E" of para 4.1. According to clause "f" if the death or disability arising as a result of war like situations including cases which are attributable to or aggravated by various factors military service. From the above discussion it has been seen that the case of the writ petitioner-respondent is squarely covered by clause "f & j of category "E" of para 4.1. According to clause "f" if the death or disability arising as a result of war like situations including cases which are attributable to or aggravated by various factors military service. 'Operation Parakaram' has been rightly recorded by the learned Single Judge was a war like situation which would cover the case of the writ petitioner-respondent. Moreover the circumstances given in clause "f" (i) (ii) are not exhausted and it would cover other cases of like nature which is evident from use of expression 'including cases attributable to or aggravated by war like situation'. The clause is flexible in its language and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner-respondent would be covered by the aforesaid clause. In any case operation which has been specially notified by the Govt covers by clause "j" of category "E". It has not been disputed that the 'Operation Parakaram' was specially notified operation by the Govt. of India, therefore, no exception is provided to admit the appeal on any of the grounds urged by the learned counsel. 11. As a sequel of the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.