An officer on casual leave is considered to be on duty, regardless of whether he is travelling at public expense or at his own expense.

R.S.Mongia, J.

1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps on December 1, 1966, as a Clerk (G.D.) and was promoted to the rank of Hawaldar in February, 1984, while he was posted in the Army. Hospital, Delhi Cantt., he proceeded on two days casual leave from August 1, 1984, to August 2, 1984, for going to his home at village Bindhroli, district Sonepat, due to some urgent work. When he was returning after availing the said casual leave on August 3, 1984, he met with an accident while trying to board the train. One leg of the petitioner was chopped off at the spot of the accident and the other leg had to be amputated by the doctors in the Army Hospital, Delhi Cantt. In fact the leg, which was chopped off at the time of accident, had also to be amputated below knee. He was medically declared to be in the category of EEE w.e.f November 4, 1985. Though other retiral benefits were given to the petitioner, yet he was not given disability pension on the ground that the disability was not attributable to Military service and the injury did not exist before or arose during Military service or had been aggravated by the Military service. This order denying the disability pension was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated October 24, 1986. He filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. This same was rejected vide order dated May 25, 1996, attached as Annexure P-3. In the appellate order, it was observed as under:-

"2. On examination of your service/ medical records/documents, the Appeal Examining Authority found that the disease causing disability to you "Crash injury both leg BK Amputation bilateral" was as a result of your falling on railway track while making efforts to catch the train on 3.8.1984 when you were returning after availing casual leave. As per the accident report, you were travelling on your own expense. Since you were travelling on your own expenses, you cannot be treated on duty. Therefore, the disability caused in these circumstances is not attributable to the military service."

The petitioner is stated to have filed representations thereafter to the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, copies of which have been attached as Annexure P-4 to P-10. Since no action had been taken on representations, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On notice of motion having been issued, the respondents have filed their reply.

2. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that an officer, subject to the Army Act, while he is on casual leave is considered to be on duty. Moreover, in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Joginder Singh v. Union of India, 1996(2) S.L.R. 149, and a Division bench judgment of this Court in Chatroo Ram v. Secretary Defence, and Ors., 1991(1) S.L.R. 678, it cannot be even disputed that an officer subject to the Army Act while on casual leave is to be treated on duty. The only ground for denying disability pension to the petitioner as is clear from the appellate order (portion of the order already reproduced above) is that the petitioner was travelling during the causal leave to and from his place of posting to his home at his own expense and not at public expense and, therefore, he could not be treated to be on duty and, therefore, the accident having occurred while the petitioner was not on duty he was not entitled to disability pension. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to Rule 6(b)(iv) Appendix II of Pension Regulations for the Army, Part I, 1961, which is in the following terms:

"A person subject to the disciplinary code of armed services is on duty when proceeding from his duty station to his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station at public expenses that is, on railway warrant, on cash TA, in Govt. transport or when road mileage is paid for the journey."

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is not disputed that the petitioner was entitled to travel on public expense during the cas