ORDER :

Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2011

1. The appellant - an army personnel, while on nine days' casual leave, suffered an injury in a scooter accident that rendered him unsuitable for any further military service. He was, therefore, discharged from service.

2. His claim for the disability element of pension was rejected by the concerned authorities holding that the injury suffered by him was not attributable to military service as stipulated in Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations of Army, 1961.

3. The appellant filed a suit claiming disability pension. The trial court dismissed the suit. Against the judgment and order passed by the trial court, the appellant preferred an appeal, which was allowed and the suit filed by him was decreed. Against the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court, the Union of India preferred a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

4. During the pendency of the second appeal, the Armed Forces Tribunal came to be constituted and the second appeal was transferred to the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal where it was registered as T.A. No. 775 of 2010, Union of India v. Sukhwant Singh.

Civil Appeal No.1988 of 2011

5. The appellant was on two months' annual leave when he met with an accident on April 18, 1994, in which his brother died and he himself received serious injuries that led to the amputation of his left leg above the knee. The Tribunal has noted that in his petition before the court the appellant did not disclose the circumstances in which the accident took place causing the injuries to him. His case also came to be transferred to the Chandigarh Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal where it was registered as T.A. No. 61 of 2010, Jagtar Singh v. Union of India.

6. Both the cases came to be heard by the Tribunal along with a number of analogous cases forming a batch. The Tribunal, by a long and well reasoned judgment, allowed the appeal of the Union of India in T.A. No.775 of 2010 and rejected the claim of the appellant Jagtar Singh in T.A. No.61 of 2010. In other words, in both cases, the disability pension claimed by the discharged army personnel was rejected on the ground that the respective injuries suffered by them were not attributable to military services.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the claimants have come to this Court in appeal.

8. We have heard Mr. Bhim Sen Sehgal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and we have also gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has painstakingly examined a conspectus of decisions on the issue of disability pension and having carefully analyzed those decisions has summed up the legal position (at page 67 of the paper book) as under:

"To sum up in our view the following principles should be the guiding factors for deciding the question of attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs, during the time the individual is on authorised leave of any kind.

a. The mere fact of a person being on 'duty' or otherwise, at the place of posting or on leave, is not the sole criteria for deciding attributability of disability/death. There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and present in his unit. It should similarly apply when he is on leave; notwithstanding both being considered as 'duty'.

b. If the injury suffered by the member of the Armed Force is the result of an act alien to the sphere of military service or in no way be connected to his being on duty as understood in the sense contemplated by Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules 1982, it would not be legislative intention or nor to our mind would be permissible approach to generalise the statement that every injury suffered during such period of leave would necessarily be attributable.

c. The a