Shrikant Tripathi, Member (J):
1. Heard Mr.B.Harish Kumar for the applicant and Mr.S.Krishnamoorthy for the respondents and perused the record.
2. The applicant, Remani P.K., claims herself as the widow of late O.K.Ramachandran, Ex-Naik, No.2555012 K of the Madras Regiment and accordingly further claims the family pension.
3. According to the record, late O.K.Ramachandran was discharged from the Army under Army Rule 13 (3) III (i) and was issued discharge certificate, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A1. He had rendered pensionary service and was, therefore, sanctioned disability pension which he used to draw till the date of his death, which took place on 12th November,2010. He had nominated respondent No.4 as his wife and recipient of the family pension in his service record and that record remained in tact till the date of his discharge without any modification. It is alleged that after the discharge from the Army, the aforesaid O.K.Ramchandran solemnized second marriage with the applicant on 5th October,1987. In support of this plea, a copy of the marriage certificate has been filed as Annexure A2. The respondent No.4, on coming to know the story of second marriage, filed a criminal complaint,C.C.No.62 of 1989, in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur, which was decided on the basis of a compromise on 5th January,1991 and ultimately the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn and the accused was discharged under Section 245 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also alleged that a compromise had also taken place between the respondent No.4 and her husband on 27th March,1991. By the compromise, Mr. O.K.Ramachandran agreed to provide maintenance to the respondent No.4. The compromise is silent as to whether the respondent No.4 and her husband agreed to dissolve the marriage. Therefore, the agreement Annexure A5 is of no help to the applicant to show that the marriage between O.K.Ramachandran and his first wife Smt.Geetha, respondent No.4, was dissolved or had come to an end. In this view of the matter, the said marriage continued even on the date the applicant and O.K.Ramachandran are alleged to have solemnized the marriage.
4. The applicant submitted a claim for the family pension on the ground that she was the wife of late O.K.Ramachandran with effect from 5.10.1987 and as such she was entitled to receive family pension. The respondents did not sanction family pension to the applicant on the ground that in the service record respondent No.4 was shown as the wife, therefore, the family pension was not payable to the applicant.
5. Mr. S.Krishnamoorthy, counsel for the respondents frankly stated that the respondents 1 to 3 were agreeable to pay family pension to the entitled person, particularly to the widow, who is legally declared as such by the court. Respondents No.1 to 3 further agree that they had no concern with the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.4.
6. In view of the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that the dispute in the present matter is with regard to the applicant's status as the widow of late O.K.Ramachandran. The question that is involved in the present matter is whether the applicant or the respondent No.4, is the widow of late O.K.Ramachandran and is entitled to receive family pension?.
7. In our view, there is no dispute between the applicant and the respondents No.1 to 3. The dispute between the applicant and the respondent No.4 being private in nature, cannot be said to be a dispute concerning âa service matterâ as defined in section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act,2007, and as such, the instant O.A. is not maintainable. The proper course for the applicant is to seek declaration of her right as the widow of late O.K.Ramachandran before the competent court and to move further in accordance with the declaration of the competent court for the family pension.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the Original Application does not appear to be maintainable before the Tribunal and is dismissed summarily at the stage of admission.
9. No order as to costs.
10. There is no authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court on the point âwhether the dispute relating to legal heirship for the purpose of claiming family pension with regard to the service of an armed forces personnel is a dispute concerning âservice matterâ as defined in Section 3 (o) of the Armed Force Tribunal Act, 2007 and is within the domain of the Armed Forces Tribunal?â. In our view, the said question is of general pubic importance involved in the decision, therefore, we consider it just and expedient to grant to the applicant, the leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the leave is granted as per Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act,2007.
11. Issue free copy of the order to both side.