1. We are called upon to impart an interpretation on the words a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service’, as occurring in Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (for short ‘Pension Regulations’). Reference to the Full Bench was originally necessitated because of the divergence of opinion of two Division Benches, in terms of the Order dated 9.3.2006 in WP(C) 11128/2005 titled Sunita Devi ‘vs- Union of India passed by the Bench comprising Mukul Mudgal and H.R. Malhotra, JJ. Our learned Brothers detected diametrically different dialectics of Division Benches, the unreported decision in WP(C) 4619/1993 titled Ex Sepoy Vijay Pal Singh ‘vs-UOI and in Ex Singnalman Shri Bhagwan ‘vs- UOI, 103(2003) DLT 269. The cause has become even more confounded and complicated owing to yet another decision of the Division Bench comprising Swatanter Kumar and G.S. Sistani, JJ. decided on 19.10.2006 reported as Jitendra Kumar ‘vs- Chief of Army Staff. Broadly stated, the submission of the petitioners is that any injury or fatality suffered by military personnel on casual leave would per se entitle them to claim Disability Pension in addition to ordinary Family Pension. The Respondents contend that the factum of casual leave is irrelevant and what has to be ascertained in every case is whether the injury was sustained while the person was doing an act ascribable to military service. So far as the situs or location where the injury came to be encountered is concerned, it is again irrelevant whether it was in a Field Service/Active Service area or under normal peace conditions. What is imperative, according to the Respondents, is that the claimant must establish that the disability or death bore a causal connection with his military duties.

2. Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations, within the parameters of which every claim of a non-commissioned personnel for Disability Pension must perforce be predicated, concerns ‘Primary conditions for the grant of disability Pension’ and reads thus:- ‘Unless otherwise specifically provided, a disability pension may be granted to an individual who is invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is assessed at 20 per cent or over. The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the Rules in Appendix II’. These provisions are similar to Regulation 48 in Chapter 2 of the Pension Regulations, which deals with claims of commissioned officers, which is in these words:-48. (a) Unless otherwise specifically provided a disability pension consisting of service element and disability element may be granted to an officer who is invalided out of service on account of a disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty cases and is assessed at 20 per cent or more. (b) The question whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service shall be determined under the rules in Appendix II.

3. The relevant Rules which are placed in Appendix-II are reproduced for facility of reference:- ‘12. A person subject to the disciplinary code of the Armed Forces is on ‘duty’:- (a) When performing an official task or a task, failure to do which would constitute an offence, triable under the disciplinary code applicable to him. (b) When moving from one place of duty to another place of duty irrespective of the mode of movement. (c) During the period of participation in recreation and other unit activities organized or permitted by Service authorities and during the period of travelling in a body or singly by a prescribed or organized route. (d) When proceeding from his duty station to his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station, provided entitled to travel at public expense, i.e. on railway warrant, on concessional voucher, on cash TA (irrespective of whether railway warran