An injury sustained while commuting within the unit is considered attributable to military service, justifying the grant of a disability pension.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Union of India was the respondent before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (AFT for short) resisting the claim of the applicant, a Havilder for grant of disability element of disability pension. AFT vide its order dated 18.06.2024 has allowed the applicant's claim holding that the applicant is entitled to grant of disability element of disability pension at 20 per cent and by rounding it off to 50 per cent for life. The benefit has been found admissible from the date next to the date of his discharge from service that is 01.05.2020. The direction was issued for release of the benefits as directed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order failing which the same was to carry interest at 8 per cent per annum from the date of the order of the Tribunal, till its realization by the applicant.

2. The brief facts which give rise to the applicant's claim is that he was posted in the 59 Infantry Division Provost Unit at Panagarh. He was assigned some duty by the Unit Company Havilder Major on 7^th February, 2019. After completing the work assigned to him and completing his evening roll call thereafter he was returning to his residential accommodation within the unit. While going back on motor cycle the motor cycle slipped on some cow dung lying on the road. The motor cycle went out of control. The applicant fell and suffered an injury in the process for which he was taken to the medical unit. The injury sustained on the left thumb did not heal and an amputation was required. After such injury being sustained the applicant was placed in a low medical category “S1H1A2 (Permanent) P1E1” for the disability of “TRAUMATIC AMPUTATION (LT) THUMB (OPTD)”.

3. The applicant served the force from the date of his enrolment as a Sepoy on 29.04.1994 till his discharge on completion of his engagement on 30.04.2020. He thereafter moved the authorities for grant of the benefit of disability element of disability pension which claim he unsuccessfully pursued upto the second appeal. Thereafter he has approached the AFT by filing the Original Application. The petitioner's application was numbered as O.A. 76 of 2021. The affidavits were exchanged and after hearing the parties, the applicant's claim was allowed.

4. The learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the petitioner is not entitled to disability element of disability pension since he was not on duty at the time he sustained the injury in the accident. There is no casual connection with his duties at the time he sustained the accidental injury as he was not performing any official task as contemplated under Rule 9(a) of the Entitlement Rules, for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2002 (as amended up to 2008), hereinafter referred as 'Entitlement Rules'.

5. There was no casual connection of the disability with military service as required under Rule 6 of the Entitlement Rule and, therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected his claim for grant of the disability element of disability pension (hereinafter referred to as “disability element”).

6. It is further submitted that the injury is not attributable to military service as required under Clause 10 of the Entitlement Rules.

7. The learned counsel for petitioner has also relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India And Others –Vs.- Jujhar Singh reported in (2011) 7 SCC 735 . He has referred to paragraph 13 of the said judgment. We have considered the same, which