Chandigarh, Jan 24: The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has granted special family pension to the widow of an Indian Air Force Wing Commander who died while saving children from drowning in a lake, during a family picnic, setting aside a Court of Inquiry finding that the death was “not attributable to military service”.
Allowing the petition filed by Anuradha Bhattacharya, wife of late Wing Commander Durlabh Bhattacharya, the AFT’s Chandigarh bench held that the officer’s death was attributable to military service.
“The finding of the Court of Inquiry holding the death as ‘not attributable to military service’ is set aside,” the bench comprising Justice Umesh Chandra Sharma and Air Marshal Manavendra Singh said in its order dated January 19.
Durlabh Bhattacharya, who was commissioned in the IAF in December 2006, drowned on February 7, 2021, while trying to rescue children who were struggling in Emerald Lake in Tamil Nadu during a family outing.
He saved one child and then dived again in an attempt to search for his daughter, but drowned.
A police report termed the death accidental. A subsequent Court of Inquiry held it was “not attributable to military service”, based on which the widow was denied a special family pension and granted only an ordinary family pension.
In September 2023, the IAF reiterated the denial of granting the special family pension, which is higher than the ordinary family pension.
The tribunal observed that the Court of Inquiry’s conclusion of “neither attributable to military service” appears to rest on a narrow interpretation of “on duty”.
Duty cannot be interpreted narrowly and confined to strict office hours, especially in uniformed, disciplined, or emergency-related services that require continuous readiness, the bench said in its order dated January 19 and released on Thursday.
Even in civil services, an employee may be considered on duty if the act performed is incidental to the obligations of service or undertaken in furtherance of public safety, the tribunal bench further said.
The respondents’ argument that the deceased was “not on duty” at the moment is unsustainable, it observed.
It added that presence at a picnic, even when informal in nature, does not sever the individual’s duty status, particularly when employees are subject to recall or responsibility. The decisive factor is the nature of the act, not the location or timing.
In her plea while challenging the rejection of special family pension, Anuradha Bhattacharya submitted that her husband had died during the bona fide act, which reflects the spirit of duty and sacrifice inherent in the military service.
The death had occurred while the officer was on duty and was not on leave, the plea had said.
She contended that the officer remained under the discipline of service at all times; the act of rescuing civilians was in line with the ethos and obligations of military service, and therefore, the death should be treated as attributable to military service.
The respondent authorities contended that although the deceased was present at the location, he was not on official duty and hence his wife is not entitled to the special family pension.
It was argued that there was no provision under which death due to accidental drowning entitles the wife to claim the special family pension.
