JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the final order dated 28.03.2022 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter called ‘the AFT’), allowing O.A.NO.39 of 2018 filed by the mother of the deceased CFN Renjith S., No.170014252W, who died unfortunately, on 23.03.2015, while in Army Service, due to an accident. He joined the Army on 24.03.2011 and served in Jammu and Kashmir area for two years and when posted at Rajasthan, was asked to join a Sainik School, Vadodara, for in-service training. After a month of rigorous training, the trainees were given four days’ leave for relaxation and that term break was also part of the training. However, during that period of leave, he unfortunately died on 23.03.2015 due to head injury and drowning in sea at Diu Fort. 2. A Court of Enquiry was conducted and found that the death of the deceased Renjith was attributed to military service and accordingly the Commanding Officer OIC Records accepted the said finding and sent the certificate to the 4th petitioner Principal Controller of Defense Accounts (Pensions). 4. The 4 th petitioner Principal Controller of Defense Accounts (Pensions), for the reason best known to him, rejected the case, holding that the death of the deceased Renjith was not attributed to or aggravated by military service. It was that rejection of the Principal Controller of Defense Accounts (Pensions) which was assailed before the Tribunal. Tribunal noticing all these facts in paragraphs 11 and 12 of its order held as follows: “11. The next point to be considered is whether the 4 th respondent is the competent authority to take a decision on the attributability of death to military service. Immediately after the death of Renjith, the Army Authorities constituted a court of enquiry consisting of three members to investigate into the circumstances under which Renjith was found dead at 2000 hrs at Diu Fort. They have examined four witnesses to find out the cause of death. Those witnesses were course mates who accompanied Renjith, at the time of the accident. After examining the evidence collected by them, they filed Annexure R- 1 report with a finding that "the death of the individual is attributable to military service". They have examined four witnesses to find out the cause of death. Those witnesses were course mates who accompanied Renjith, at the time of the accident. After examining the evidence collected by them, they filed Annexure R- 1 report with a finding that "the death of the individual is attributable to military service". The Commanding Officer OIC Records accepted the said finding and sent Annexure A-1 certificate to the applicant stating that the death is attributable to military service. But, the 4 th respondent PCDA (P) reversed the said finding and found that the death is not attributable to military service. According to Regulation 105(a) of the Pension Regulations for the Army 2008, the question whether the death is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards for the Armed Forces Personnel 2008, contained in Appendix IV to the said Regulations. Rules 12 and 13 of the said Rules specify the competent authorities to take decision on attributability and aggravation. According to Rule 13(i), the decision regarding the attributability/aggravation in respect of death due to injury cases, for grant of special family pension shall be taken by the OIC Records in case of PBOR. It follows that the 4 th respondent is not the competent authority and 3 rd respondent is the competent authority to take a decision on attributability to military service in the case of death due to injury. In the instant case, the OIC Records accepted the findings of the enquiry report that the cause of death is attributable to military service. Since the 4 th respondent is not the competent authority to take a decision on the attributability of death and 3 rd respondent is the competent authority for the same, the findings of the 3rd respondent (OIC Records) are final and interference with that decision by the 4th respondent is illegal and improper. Therefore, we conclude that the finding of the 4th respondent that the cause of death is not attributable to military service is illegal and invalid. We further find that the cause of death of Renjith, the son of the applicant is attributable to military service. Consequently, we find that the applicant is entitled to get special family pension. 12. Therefore, we conclude that the finding of the 4th respondent that the cause of death is not attributable to military service is illegal and invalid. We further find that the cause of death of Renjith, the son of the applicant is attributable to military service. Consequently, we find that the applicant is entitled to get special family pension. 12. In view of the findings on question No. 1, question No.2 has become infructuous and there is no need to answer the said question.” 5. We are in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal for the reason that the Competent Authority i.e., the Court of Enquiry had already found that it was not in any violation of Regulation 9 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards for Armed Forces Personnel, extracted in paragraph 10 of the order. For the sake of brevity, it is reproduced herein below: "9. Duty For the purpose of these Rules, a pension subject to the disciplinary code of the Armed Forces shall be treated on 'duty': (a) When performing an official task or a task failure to do which would constitute an offence, triable under the disciplinary code applicable to him. (b) When moving from one place of duty to another place of duty irrespective of the mode of movement. (c) During the period of participation in recreation and other unit/sports activities organized or approved by service authorities and during the period of travelling in relation thereto. (d) When proceeding on leave/valid out pass from his duty station to his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station on leave/valid out pass" 6. The 4 th petitioner could not have sat in an appeal of the Court of Enquiry and differ by rejecting the pension. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the Tribunal noting the release of the pension of the respondent/applicant’s son Renjith. Accordingly, the writ petition along with the application seeking re-presentation delay of 115 days stands dismissed.