Union of India Ministry of Defence Through the Secretary vs Ex Naik Ram Singh

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … APPELLANTS

v.

EX. NAIK RAM SINGH … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. The appellants, Union of India and three others, have taken

an exception to the judgment and order dated 23 rd December 2010

of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench at

Chandimandir (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

directed to release the disability pension quantified at 80% NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2022.07.18 17:08:29 IST Reason:

disability for life to the respondent from the date of his discharge

1 from military service. The appellants were directed to pay arrears

of disability pension restricted to a period of three years

immediately preceding filing of the application by the respondent

before the Tribunal. Interest @10% per annum was granted on the

arrears.

3. The respondent was enrolled in the Army on 4 th June 1965.

After rendering colour service for 10 years and 88 days, he was

transferred to reserved establishment on 30 th August 1975. During

his reserve period, he voluntarily got himself enrolled in Defence

Security Corps on 7th January 1976. On 6th November 1999, the

respondent was granted annual leave. He proceeded to

Kishanpura on the same day. While on leave, on 8 th November

1999, he suffered an accident. While crossing the road, he was hit

by a speedy scooter. As a result of the accident, he sustained head

injury and became unconscious. The Medical Board assessed the

percentage of the disability of the respondent at 80%. The Medical

Board placed the respondent in low medical category (EEE). On

that ground, he was invalidated out of service from 28 th September

2000.

4. The respondent made an application to the Armed Forces

Tribunal praying for grant of disability pension. In the impugned

judgment, the Tribunal relied upon its decision dated 15 th

December 2010 in T.A. No.237 of 2010 (Ex. NK. Raj Pal v. Union

2 of India & Ors.). The Tribunal held that if an individual sustains

an injury during the period of any kind of authorized leave and his

act was not inconsistent with Military service, his disability is

deemed to be attributable to Military service.

5. On 6th December 2013, this Court issued notice to the

respondent. After service of notice, the respondent did not appear.

While granting leave on 10th October 2014, a fresh notice was

issued to the respondent which has been duly served. The

respondent did not enter appearance even thereafter.

6. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General urged

that there has to be a reasonable connection between the injuries

sustained by a member of Armed Forces resulting in disability and

the Military service. He invited our attention to Regulation 173 of

the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (for short, ‘the

Pension Regulations’). He also invited our attention to Rule 12 of

the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982. He

submitted that the accident occurred couple of days after the

respondent travelled from the place of his duty to leave station. He

would submit that the respondent was disentitled to disability

pension. He fairly pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal in

T.A.No.237 of 2010 relied upon in the impugned judgment, was

challenged by the Union of India. However, the special leave

petition was dismissed summarily. He submitted that what holds

3 the field is the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India

& Ors. v. Vijay Kumar No.3989606 P, Ex­Naik1.

7. On facts, it is an admitted position that the respondent was

granted annual leave on 6th November 1999. He proceeded on the

same day to leave station. On 8th November 1999, when he was

crossing the road, he suffered an accident. As noted earlier, his

disability was assessed at 80%. Regulation 173 of the Pension

Regulations reads thus.:

“173.Primary conditions for the grant of disability pension.­Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an individual who is invalidated out of service on account of disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non­battle casualty and is assessed at 20% or over.” (underline supplied)

8. The Entitlement Rules, 1982 and in particular Rule 12,

defines ‘Duty’. Clause (d) of Note 2 which is a part of Rule 12

clarifies that personnel while travelling between the place of their

duty to leave station and vice­versa, shall be treated on duty. It is

not the case made out by the respondent that the accident

occurred when he was travelling to leave station. It happened after

he reached the leave station. Unless the disability is attributable

1 2015 (10) SCC 460

4 to or aggravated by military service and is more than 20%, the

entitlement to disability pension does not arise.

9. This Court in the case of Vijay Kumar1, after considering

Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations and Rule 12 of the

Entitlement Rules, 1982, in paragraph 14 held thus.:

“14. The Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 are beneficial in nature and ought to be liberally construed. In terms of Rule 12, the disability sustained during the course of an accident which occurs when the personnel of the armed forces is not strictly on duty may also be attributable to service on fulfilling of certain conditions enumerated therein. But there has to be a reasonable causal connection between the injuries resulting in disability and the military service.” (underline supplied)

10. What is held above, is the binding precedent. In the present

case, as noted earlier, two days after the respondent reached the

leave station, he met with an accident on a public road. There is

absolutely no nexus between the Military service and injuries

sustained by the respondent. There is not even a causal

connection. The Tribunal has completely overlooked this aspect

which goes to the root of the matter. Hence, the respondent was

not entitled to the disability pension.

5

11. Accordingly, Civil Appeal is allowed. Impugned Judgment

dated 23rd December 2010 is hereby set aside. O.A. No.944 of

2010 filed by the respondent stands dismissed. No order as to

costs.

…………….…………J.

(Abhay S. Oka)

…………….…………J.

(M.M. Sundresh)

July 18th, 2022 New Delhi.

6