IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When Armed Forces personnel is availing casual leave or annual leave, is to be treated on duty.
(2) Disability Pension – Determining factor is a causal connection between accident and military duties.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated March 7, 2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, Regional Bench at Chandimandir, [for short, ‘Tribunal’] , granting disability pension to the respondent Dharambir Singh, as the injury was found to be attributed to military service.

2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent joined Territorial Army on December 28, 1981 and was discharged on December 13, 1999. He was granted two days casual leave from January 25, 1999 to January 26, 1999 when posted at Jalandhar Cantt. During the leave period, he met with an accident while riding a scooter and suffered head injury with Faciomaxillary and compound fracture 1/3rd Femur (LT). A Court of Inquiry [for short, ‘COI’] was conducted to investigate into the circumstances under which the respondent sustained injuries. The Brigade Commander has given its Report dated August 18, 1999 that the injuries, occurred in peace area, are attributable to military service. One of the findings of the Report recorded under Column 3(c) is reproduced hereunder:

3. After rendering pensionable service of 17 years and 225 days, the respondent was discharged from service on December 13, 1999 pursuant to the report of the Medical Board dated November 29, 1999 which held the disability to be 30%. However, the claim for disability pension was rejected by the Medical Board on the ground that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. An appeal filed by the respondent against the rejection of his claim for disability pension was rejected by the Additional Directorate General, Personnel Services. It is thereafter the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal referred to the judgment of this Court in Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 459 and held that the respondent is entitled to disability pension.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that though the respondent would be treated to be on duty even if he was on casual leave or annual leave but the injuries suffered must have causal connection as attributable to or aggravated by military service. The respondent in this case was admittedly going on a scooter to purchase electrical goods for his sister when he lost control while saving a cyclist, therefore, there is no causal connection between the injuries resulting in disability and military service. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon two recent judgments of this Court in Renu Devi v. Union of India & Ors., Decided on July 03, 2019 in Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No.37356 of 2017 & Anr. and Union of India & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar No.3989606 P, ExNaik, (2015) 10 SCC 460. This Court in Vijay Kumar examined the admissibility of disability pension, when personnel of Armed Forces are on leave. The Court declined the claim with the following findings:

“23. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the injury suffered by the respondent has no causal connection with the military service. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident resulting in the injury to the respondent was not even remotely connected to his military duty and it falls in the domain of an entirely private act and therefore the impugned orders cannot be sustained.”

5. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the claim of disability pension arises under two heads: one, under ‘injury’ and the other, under ‘disease’ cases. It is argued that the opinion of the Medical Board in respect of disease cases is final but, in respect of injury cases, the finding of the COI is final and is to be made basis of grant of disabil