SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Union Of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ex. Naik Ram Singh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9654 of 2014
Decided On : 18-07-2022
Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 – Regulation 173 read with Rule 12 of Entitlement Rules, 1982 – Disability Pension – Grant of – When respondent was crossing road, he suffered accident – Medical Board assessed percentage of disability of respondent at 80% – Personnel while travelling between place of their duty to leave station and vice versa, shall be treated on duty – Unless disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is more than 20%, entitlement to disability pension does not arise – In present case, two days after respondent reached leave station, he met with accident on a public road – There is absolutely no nexus between Military service and injuries sustained by respondent – There is not even a causal connection – Tribunal has completely overlooked this aspect which goes to root of matter – Respondent was not entitled to disability pension – Impugned Judgment set aside. (Paras 7, 8, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Appellants, Union of India and three others, have taken exception to the judgment and order dated 23rd December 2010 of Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were directed to release the disability pension quantified at 80% disability for life to the respondent from the date of his discharge from military service. The appellants were directed to pay arrears of disability pension restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding filing of the application by the respondent before the Tribunal. Interest @10% per annum was granted on the arrears.
Findings of Court:
It is not the case made out by the respondent that the accident occurred when he was travelling to leave station. It happened after he reached the leave station.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. The appellants, Union of India and three others, have taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 23rd December 2010 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench at Chandimandir (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were directed to release the disability pension quantified at 80% disability for life to the respondent from the date of his discharge from military service. The appellants were directed to pay arrears of disability pension restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding filing of the application by the respondent before the Tribunal. Interest @10% per annum was granted on the arrears.
3. The respondent was enrolled in the Army on 4th June 1965. After rendering colour service for 10 years and 88 days, he was transferred to reserved establishment on 30th August 1975. During his reserve period, he voluntarily got himself enrolled in Defence Security Corps on 7th January 1976. On 6th November 1999, the respondent was granted annual leave. He proceeded to Kishanpura on the same day. While on leave, on 8th November 1999, he suffered an accident. While crossing the road, he was hit by a speedy scooter. As a result of the accident, he sustained head injury and became unconscious. The Medical Board assessed the percentage of the disability of the respondent at 80%. The Medical Board placed the respondent in low medical category (EEE). On that ground, he was invalidated out of service from 28th September 2000.
4. The respondent made an application to the Armed Forces Tribunal praying for grant of disability pension. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal relied upon its decision dated 15th December 2010 in T.A. No.237 of 2010 (Ex. NK. Raj Pal v. Union of India & Ors.). The Tribunal held that if an individual sustains an injury during the period of any kind of authorized leave and his act was not inconsistent with Military service, his disability is deemed to be attributable to Military service.
5. On 6th December 2013, this Court issued notice to the respondent. After service of notice, the respondent did not appear. While granting leave on 10th October 2014, a fresh notice was issued to the respondent which has been duly served. The respondent did not enter appearance even thereafter.
6. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General urged that there has to be a reasonable connection between the injuries sustained by a member of Armed Forces resulting in disability and the Military service. He invited our attention to Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (for short, ‘the Pension Regulations’). He also invited our attention to Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982. He submitted that the accident occurred couple of days after the respondent travelled from the place of his duty to leave station. He would submit that the respondent was disentitled to disability pension. He fairly pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal in T.A.No.237 of 2010 relied upon in the impugned judgment, was challenged by the Union of India. However, the special leave petition was dismissed summarily. He submitted that what holds the field is the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar No.3989606 P, Ex-Naik, 1 2015 (10) SCC 460.
7. On facts, it is an admitted position that the respondent was granted annual leave on 6th November 1999. He proceeded on the same day to leave station. On 8th November 1999, when he was crossing the road, he suffered an accident. As noted earlier, his disability was assessed at 80%. Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations reads thus.:
The court affirmed that the burden of proof regarding disability pension entitlement rests with the military establishment under Entitlement Rules, 2008, thereby entitling the service member to pensi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.