Introduction:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently addressed the issue of missing soldiers and their families’ struggles to access pension and retirement benefits. In a significant judgment, the court disapproved of the Indian Army’s behavior towards the families of missing soldiers and highlighted the need to reform outdated rules governing pension and retirement benefits.

The case involved the family members of Surendra Singh Solanki, a soldier who went missing in 2010. The family filed a civil suit to modify the date of his death in order to access various benefits, including pension and gratuity. The trial court had partially allowed the suit, but the decision was challenged in the High Court.

Arguments Presented:

The appellant argued that the date of Solanki’s death should be considered as the date he went missing, as determined by the Army’s Court of Inquiry and accepted by the Defense Accounts Department for granting ordinary family pension.

The respondents, representing the Indian Army, maintained that the date of death could not be presumed solely based on the date of disappearance. They argued that the Evidence Act does not provide guidelines for determining the date of death in such cases.

Court’s Decision:

The High Court analyzed the evidence on record and concluded that the date of Solanki’s death should be considered as the date he went missing, based on the preponderance of probabilities. It criticized the Indian Army’s treatment of missing soldiers’ families and emphasized the need to abolish outdated rules regarding pension and retirement benefits.