Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 277 (JK)

Nisha Kumari v. Union of India

2020-06-29

RAJESH BINDAL

body2020
ORDER The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following reliefs:- “i) To issue directions to the respondents to fix and release family pension in favour of the petitioner and also to pay all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, by issuance of writ of mandamus; ii) to quash Order No. 9110379/FP/Case dated 09.03.2005 by which the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension, by issuance of writ of certiorari; iii) to issue directions to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for wrongly withholding family pension and other pensionary benefits, by issuance of writ of mandamus; iv) to issue directions to the respondents to release the arrears of family pension retrospectively with effect from 12th of April, 1995 from the date the father of the petitioner expired by issuance of writ of Mandamus; v) to declare the act of respondents by which the respondents have not fixed and released the pension and order No. 9110379/FP/Case dated 09.03.2005 by which the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension, as ultra virus, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law, by issuance of writ of mandamus.” 2. It is claimed that the petitioner is a minor so she had filed the present petition through her elder brother. The father of the petitioner was serving in Indian Army as L/Naik and was allotted No. 9110379. He was enrolled on 12th of July, 1948 and after serving for more than 19 years and 29 days he was discharged by the order of Commandant on 11.08.1967. The father of the petitioner was getting pension and on 09.04.2004, the father of the petitioner got expired. 3. It is also claimed that the father of the petitioner solemnized two marriages one with Ishroo Devi and other with Smt. Chanchlo Devi, who is the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner is eligible and entitled for grant of family pension being daughter of Anant Ram. The petitioner made a representation where the petitioner has specifically mentioned that she had submitted all the requisite documents to the respondents for grant of family pension, but the respondents have not considered her case for the same. 4. The petitioner is eligible and entitled for grant of family pension being daughter of Anant Ram. The petitioner made a representation where the petitioner has specifically mentioned that she had submitted all the requisite documents to the respondents for grant of family pension, but the respondents have not considered her case for the same. 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that jurisdiction to decide the lis lies with the Armed Forces Tribunal in terms of Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. 5. Considering the submissions as noticed above, the present petition is transferred to Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu. The parties are directed to appear before the Bench as and when the same is available. 6. As the petitioner was not represented let a copy of the order be sent by the Registry of this Court to the petitioner and the Tribunal shall issue notice to the petitioner of the date of hearing so fixed. 7. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 8. The record of the case be sent to the Tribunal, however, retaining a copy thereof for record.