Back
1999(7) Supreme 206
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
S.P. Bharucha & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Madan Singh Shekhawat -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 1999
Decided on 17-8-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : N. Vyas, Advocate for B.D. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : N.N. Goswami, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Anubha Jain, (S.N. Terdol), Advocate for Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
Held : The controversy is whether the qualification “at public expense” found in this rule is so mandatory as to deprive an army personnel who is travelling to his leave station or vice versa “on duty”, but at his own expense, of the benefit of disability pension if need arises. (Para 8)
If the expression “at public expense” is to be construed literally then under the Rules referred to above, an army personnel incurring a disability during his travel at his own expense will not be entitled to the benefit of Rule 6(c) (supra). The object of the rule, as we see, is to provide relief to a victim of accident during the travel. If that be so, the nature of expenditure incurred for the purpose of such travel is wholly alien to the object of the rule. (Para 9)
It is the duty of the Court to interpret a provision, especially a beneficial provision, liberally so as to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the Rule. (Para 10)
The rule makers did not intend to deprive the army personnel of the benefit of the disability pension solely on the ground that the cost of journey was not borne by the public exchequer. If the journey was authorised, it can make no difference whether the fare for the same came from the public exchequer or the army personnel himself. We, therefore, construe the words “at public expense” used in the relevant part of the rule to mean travel which is undertaken authorisedly. Even an army personnel entitled to casual leave may not be entitled to leave his station of posting without permission. Generally, when authorised to avail the leave for leaving the station of posting, an army personnel uses what is known as “travel warrant” which is issued at public expense, same will not be issued if person concerned is travelling unauthorisedly. In this context, we are of the opinion, the words, namely, “at public expense” are used rather loosely for the purpose of connoting the necessity of proceeding or returning from such journey authorisedly. Meaning thereby if such journey is undertaken even on casual leave but without authorisation to leave the place of posting, the person concerned will not be entitled to the benefit of the disability pension since his act of undertaking the journey would be unauthorised. (Paras 12 & 13)
Since on facts there is no allegation in this case that the appellant while travelling to his leave station on the fateful day was travelling unauthorisedly, we are of the opinion that he is entitled to the benefit of disability pension as provided under the Rules. (Para 14)
The appeal arises from judgments of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing the appellant's claim for disability pension. (!) [1000039320003]
Appellant joined Indian Army as Sawar in 1975, discharged in 1987 after 11.5 years service due to medical grounds from accident on 1.10.1984 while alighting from train on authorized casual leave from Jodhpur to home station; right hand amputated. [1000039320001]
Claim for special disability pension recommended by higher authorities but rejected by Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension) on ground that appellant was not on military service at time of accident; representations rejected, leading to writ petition dismissed by Single Judge and Division Bench on basis of travel at own expense. [1000039320002]
At time of accident, appellant was traveling to 'leave station' on authorized casual leave; no dispute on this fact. [1000039320004]
Casual leave counts as duty per Rule 10, except as per Rule 11(a); appellant not under exceptions, so on duty at time of accident. (!) (!) (!)
Rule 48 governs disability pension admissibility; for officers retired due to disability attributable to or aggravated by service assessed at 20% or over, disability pension awarded. (!) (!) (!)
Under Rule 48(c), person deemed 'on duty' when proceeding to or returning from leave station "at public expense"; entitlement to disability pension if disability occurs then. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Issue: whether "at public expense" mandatory to deprive army personnel on authorized duty travel to/from leave station at own expense of disability pension. [1000039320005][1000039320007] (!)
Literal construction of "at public expense" would deny benefit for self-funded travel, but rule's object is relief for accident victims during travel; expenditure nature irrelevant to object. [1000039320008]
Beneficial provisions must be interpreted liberally for wider meaning, not restrictively negating object. [1000039320009]
Rule makers did not intend denial solely because journey cost not from public exchequer; if authorized, irrelevant whether fare public or personal. [1000039320011]
"At public expense" construed to mean authorized travel; casual leave requires permission to leave station; travel warrants issued only for authorized leave at public expense, connoting authorization necessity. Unauthorized journey, even on casual leave, ineligible. [1000039320012]
No allegation of unauthorized travel by appellant; entitled to disability pension under rules. [1000039320013]
Appeal allowed; impugned judgments set aside; writ petition allowed with consequential benefits. [1000039320014] (!)
Judgment
Santosh Hegde, J.-This appeal arises from the Judgment of the Appellate Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Spl. Appeal No. 100/98 dated 4th February, 1998 confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the same High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4004/91 dated 1st October, 1997.
2. The appellant had joined the Indian Army as a Sawar (Horse Rider) in the 17th Horse Unit September, 1975. He had completed 11 years and six months of service when he was discharged from the Military Service on medical grounds on 25th of April, 1987. The cause of his discharge on medical grounds arose from an accident in which the appellant was involved on 1.10.1994 while alighting from the train at Didwara Railway Station, consequent to which accident appellant’s right hand was amputated just four inches below from the joint of collar pone. At the time of the accident, the appellant was travelling from Jodhpur to his home station on authorised casual leave granted to him.
3. On discharge from service, on the above stated ground, the appellant put forth a claim for special disability pension payable under the relevant rules which though recommended by higher authorities was rejected by the Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad on 4.10.1988 solely on the ground that at the time of the accident the appellant was not on Military service. The appellant’s representation/appeal for grant of disability pension having been rejected, as stated above, the approached the learned Single Judge of the High Court by way of a writ petition. The writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled for this disability pension on the limited ground that at the time of accident he was travelling at his own expenses, therefore, the relevant rule did not permit the grant of disability pension.
4. The appellant’s appeal to the Division Bench having met with the same fate, he is now before us in this appeal by special leave.
5. There is no dispute that at the time of the accident, the appellant was travelling to his home town which is termed as ‘leave station’ under the rules on casual leave granted to him by the Competent Authority.
6. The grant of disability pension is governed by the various rules found in Defence Services Regulation.
Rule 10 of the said rules reads thus :-
“Casual leave counts as duty except as provided for in Rule 11(a).”
As per this rule when an army personnel is on casual leave, same is counted as duty unless he comes under any one of the exceptions under Rule 11(a) of the rules. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellant comes under any such exceptions. Therefore, as per Rule 10(a), the appellant was on duty at the time of the accident.
7. Rule 48 of the said regulation contemplates admissibility of disability pension. It has enumerated various cases under which an army personnel is entitled to the grant of disability pension.
Rule 48 reads thus :-
“Disability pension when admissible-
An officer who is retired from military service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by such service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over may, on retirement, be awarded a disability pension consisting of a service element and a disability element in accordance with the regulations in this section.”
In respect of accidents the following rules will be observed :-
(a) ..................
(b) ..................
(c) A person is also deemed to be ‘on duty’ during the period of participation in recreation, organised or permitted by Service Authorities and of travelling in a body or singly under organised arrangements. A person is also considered to be ‘on duty’ when proceeding to his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station at public expense.”
(emphasis supplied).
This rule is a deeming provision which provides for situations under which a person on duty,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
