JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. This appeal by Union of India is directed against the final judgment and order dated 04.01.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 5 of 2002 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed their appeal in limine.

2. Brief facts:

(a) The Respondent was enrolled in the Army on 27.06.1978. In the year 1987, when he was on annual leave to his native place, he met with an accident on 26.03.1987 and sustained severe injuries and was admitted in the hospital from 26.03.1987 to 20.01.1989. Subsequently, he was admitted in Military Hospital, Dehradun and after treatment was placed in medical category BEE (Permanent) and percentage of disability was ascertained as 20%. After he joined the duty, he was kept under observation by the Medical Board and his disability was assessed as 60% for two years. The Medical Board also opined that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service.

(b) The Respondent was superannuated from service w.e.f. 01.07.1998 and he was granted normal service pension. He made a representation before the authorities claiming disability pension on the ground that he was having disability on the date of retirement. The representation was rejected by the authorities.

(c) Against the rejection of disability pension claim, the Respondent preferred a writ petition being C.W.P. No. 14290 of 1999 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 20.07.2001, allowed the writ petition by holding that the Respondent herein is entitled for disability pension under Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations").

(d) Challenging the said order, the Appellants herein preferred L.P.A. No. 5 of 2002 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, by impugned judgment dated 04.01.2002, dismissed the appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellants preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Union of India and Mr. Jujhar Singh Respondent, who appeared in person.

4. The questions that arise for consideration in this appeal are:

(a) Whether the case of the Respondent for disability is covered under Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations for the Army (Part I) 1961?

(b) Whether the disability in an accident suffered by the Respondent during his annual leave while doing his persona l work would amount to the disability attributable to or aggravated by military service?

5. Discussion:

We have already narrated the required factual details. It is seen that when the Respondent was on annual leave, he met with a road accident at his native place and sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability. It is further seen that after treatment and returning from his leave, he continued in military service and w.e.f. 01.07.1998, the Respondent was superannuated from service and he was granted normal service pension. According to the Respondent, since on the date of retirement, he was permanently disabled, he is entitled for disability pension for which he made a representation which was rejected by the authorities.

6. It was contended by the Respondent before the learned Single Judge that at the relevant time when he had gone on leave he remained in military service and while attending to his normal duties at home he suffered disability and later superannuated with the said disability, hence eligible for disability pension. The learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that the writ Petitioner-Respondent herein is entitled to disability pension as envisaged under Regulation 179 of the Regulations since he retired in normal course and he was not invalidated from military service on account of his disability but the fact is that he was suffering from disability on the date of retirement which is above th