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] (!)