IAF officer’s death during children's rescue ‘attributable to service’, widow entitled to pension: AFT

The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has granted special family pension to the widow of an Indian Air Force (IAF) Wing Commander who died while rescuing children from drowning during a family picnic, holding that his death was attributable to military service.

Allowing the petition filed by Anuradha Bhattacharya, wife of late Wing Commander Durlabh Bhattacharya, the AFT’s Chandigarh bench set aside the finding of a Court of Inquiry which had earlier ruled that the death was “not 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 19 January.

Wing Commander Bhattacharya, who was commissioned into the Indian Air Force in December 2006, drowned on 7 February 2021 while trying to rescue children who were struggling in Emerald Lake in Tamil Nadu during a family outing. He managed to save one child and then dived again in an attempt to search for his daughter, but drowned in the process.

A police report had described the incident as accidental. Subsequently, a Court of Inquiry held that the death was “not attributable to military service”, on the basis that the officer was not on official duty at the time. On this ground, his widow was denied special family pension and sanctioned only an ordinary family pension. The IAF reiterated this decision in September 2023.

The tribunal, however, observed that the Court of Inquiry’s conclusion rested on an unduly narrow interpretation of the expression “on duty”.

“Duty cannot be interpreted narrowly and confined to strict office hours, especially in uniformed, disciplined or emergency-related services which require continuous readiness,” the bench said.

It added that even in civil services, an employee may be considered to be on duty if the act performed is incidental to the obligations of service or undertaken in furtherance of public safety. The respondents’ argument that the deceased was “not on duty” at the time of the incident was therefore unsustainable, it held.

The bench further observed that presence at a picnic, even if informal in nature, does not sever an individual’s duty status, particularly where employees are subject to recall or responsibility. “The decisive factor is the nature of the act, not the location or timing,” it said.

In her plea challenging the rejection of special family pension, Anuradha Bhattacharya submitted that her husband had died while performing a bona fide act reflecting the spirit of duty and sacrifice inherent in military service. She contended that he was not on leave at the time and remained under the discipline of service, and that rescuing civilians was in line with the ethos and obligations of the armed forces.

The respondent authorities had argued that there was no provision entitling the widow to special family pension in cases of accidental drowning when the officer was not on official duty.

Rejecting this contention, the AFT held that the officer’s act of risking his life to save children was in furtherance of public safety and military ethos, and therefore squarely attributable to military service.