Subsequent claim for Special Family Pension is barred by constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC.

The petitioner’s husband, Late Havildar Rajesh Chauhan, was enrolled in the Indian Army in 1988.

While serving in Jammu & Kashmir, he was diagnosed with Anxiety Neurosis/Hypomania and died on 31.01.2012 after failing to rejoin duty following medical leave.

He was dismissed from service post-death on 20.04.2012.

In a 2017 proceeding (O.A. No. 71(J)/2017), the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) quashed the dismissal, deemed him to have died in harness, and granted the petitioner ordinary family pension and retiral benefits based on 15 years of qualifying service.

In 2020, the petitioner filed a second application (O.A. No. 45/2020) seeking "Special Family Pension" (SFP) on the ground that the illness was attributable to military service.

The AFT dismissed this application on 28.08.2024 as barred by constructive res judicata, prompting this miscellaneous petition.

1. Whether the claim for Special Family Pension in a subsequent proceeding is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata when ordinary family pension was already granted in an earlier proceeding.

2. Whether the petitioner is precluded from seeking additional relief under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) after omitting to claim it in the first instance.

Doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata (Explanation IV to Section 11 of the CPC), which stipulates that any matter that "might and ought" to have been made a ground of attack in a former suit is deemed to have been directly in issue.

Order II Rule 2 and 3 of the CPC, which requires a suit to include the whole claim arising from a cause of action and bars subsequent litigation for reliefs omitted without the court's leave.

Doctrine of Election, which prevents a party from pursuing alternative remedies simultaneously or sequentially after electing one.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s husband was deemed to have died in harness via the 2017 order, and the petitioner had specifically prayed for and received ordinary family pension and consequential benefits at that time.

The Court reasoned that the claim for Special Family Pension was available during the 2017 proceedings as it arose from the same cause of action—the death of the husband and entitlement to benefits.

By failing to raise the claim of "attributability to service" then, the petitioner cannot raise it now via "piecemeal litigation".

The Court found no fresh documents or substantial material to justify a new cause of action.

Since the applicable pensionary scheme allows for only one type of family pension, the petitioner’s election of ordinary pension and her omission to seek SFP in the prior litigation triggered the bars under Order II Rule 2 and constructive res judicata.

The Court affirmed the Armed Forces Tribunal’s order, finding no infirmity in the application of legal principles to the finality of the earlier adjudication and dismissed the miscellaneous petition without costs.