JUDGMENT :

This appeal arises out of an order dated 10th May, 2010 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow whereby Transferred Application No. 191 of 2009 filed by the respondent has been allowed, orders passed by the appellants herein set aside and the respondent held entitled to claim disability pension to the extent of 20% with effect from the date of his discharge.

2. Respondent was serving as a Sepoy in the Indian Army's Air Defence Corps. Having served for nearly 17 years he was discharged from service on 1st July, 2004 upon completion of the tenure. It is not in dispute that service pension admissible to him has been released in his favour. Since, however, the respondent had suffered a disability while in service he appears to have claimed disability pension also which was declined by the appellants on the ground that the disability was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service. Aggrieved by the said refusal the respondent filed W.P. No. 3649 of 2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which came to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, after setting up of the said Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Respondent's case in the writ petition and so also before us is that while posted in a field area in the State of Jammu and Kashmir he was authorised to go on annual leave for a period of two months. His further case is that having started his homeward journey from Jammu on 25th March, 1997 he travelled to Hajipur, ahead of Sewan in the State of Bihar, by train. On 27th March, 1997 while boarding a bus from Hajipur to reach Patna to join his family he met with an accident that resulted in a disability, assessed at 20% by the Medical Board concerned. A Court of Inquiry ordered into the incident recorded a finding that the accident and the resultant injury suffered by the respondent were not attributable to military service. The claim for payment of disability pension was on that finding declined by the appellants, according to whom the respondent was authorised to travel upto Gopalganj-his home station via Lucknow, Gorakhpur and Sewan. Any accident involving the respondent at Hajipur was, according to the appellants, in no way related to military service or the time requisite for completing the homeward journey which the respondent was authorised to undertake.

The respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal in T.P. No. 191 of 2009 to challenge the order rejecting his claim. The Tribunal examined the rival versions and held that the disability was indeed attributable to military service inasmuch as the respondent was on annual leave hence deemed to be on duty at the time the same was suffered. The Tribunal has consequently set aside the orders passed by the appellants refusing the pension and issued directions for payment of the dues with effect from the date of his discharge from service. The present appeal filed by the appellants assails the correctness of the said order of the Tribunal, as noticed earlier.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length who have taken us through the orders passed by the Tribunal as also other documents on record. Apart from the fact that an appeal under the provisions of Section 31 of the Act, aforementioned, is maintainable only in case the same involves a substantial question of law of general/public importance/interest which does not appear to be arising in this case, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal does not even otherwise warrant any interference by us. We say so because in terms of Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 a person subject to the disciplinary code of the Armed Forces is treated on duty while performing any one of the functions mentioned in paras (a), (b) and (c) of the Pension Regulations. Notes 1 and 2 to the entitlement Rules elaborate the scope and the purport of the term "duty". Para (t