Injuries sustained by armed forces personnel while proceeding towards the place of posting to perform duties are considered related to military service, entitling the personnel to disability pension under Pension Regulations.

1. Letters Patent Appeal on hand is directed against writ court judgment dated 16th October 2000, in writ petition titled Ex-Subedar Gurdass Singh v. Union of India and Others (SWP No. 204/1999), whereby writ court has allowed writ petition, held writ petitioner/ respondent entitled to disability pension and interest on the arrears of disability pension to be worked out, at the rate of 12% per annum till its payment. The appeal arises in the following background.

2. The writ petitioner/respondent was enrolled in Indian Army on 21st February, 1969 and by dint of his hard work and dedication rose to the position of Subedar in the Army. On 15th December, 1996, he while posted at Nagrota left his place of posting with the permission (out pass) of the competent authority, for Keran a nearby town to attend religious function. On his way back, the scooter on which he was travelling was hit by speeding truck (tipper) bearing registration no. JKOIB-4325. He suffered multiple injuries in the accident. He was exonerated in the departmental enquiry and liability of accident fixed on the driver of the aforementioned truck.

3. Multiple injuries sustained by writ petitioner/ respondent, led to his discharge from the service on medical grounds. He approached authorities with the request for disability pension. His request was not entertained/executed on the ground that the disability was neither attributable nor aggravated by military services.

4. Aggrieved with refusal to allow disability pension, writ petitioner/respondent approached this court with a writ petition being SWP No. 204/1999, and sought a direction to the respondents commanding them to grant him disability pension in accordance with rules. The respondents/appellants though given adequate opportunity to oppose the writ petition opted not to file any counter. The writ court therefore took up writ petition for final disposal in absence of counter affidavit.

5. The writ court after going through the grounds urged in the writ petition and scanning case law on the subject, held petitioner/respondent entitled to disability pension and accordingly directed respondents/appellants to work out disability pension whatever due to the respondent/petitioner and release it along with interest of 12% per annum, in his favour.

6. The writ court order is questioned in the LPA on hand on the grounds that appellants were not given a reasonable and adequate opportunity to file their reply to the writ petition. It is pleaded that learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition did not appreciate that injuries suffered by writ petitioner/respondent i.e. Fracture, Shaft and Femur RT( OPTD) was not related to military service and therefore his case did not fall within the purview of Regulation 173, Pension Rules, 1972.

7. It is insisted that writ petitioner/respondent was not performing any official duty at the time he met with accident and sustained multiple injuries. The writ court judgment is in particular held to be in conflict with law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Baljit Singh, CA 1327 of 1996 (judgment dated 11th October 1996).

8. We have gone through the appeal as also writ court judgment questioned in appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant while addressing his arguments reiterated the grounds urged in the memo of appeal and insists that as the writ petitioner/respondent at the time of accident was on leave and not performing any official duty, he was not entitled to any disability pension, much less interest on any such amount. Learned counsel to buttress his argument seeks support from the law laid down in Secretary, Ministers of Defence and others v. Damodaran A.V. (Dead) Thr. L. Rs. and Ors, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2751 and Union of India and Ors. v. Jujhgar Singh AIR 2011 SC 2598.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relies upon law laid down in Jitendra Kumar v. Ch