SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(P&H) 1185

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Manjit Singh, Ex.Naik
Versus
Government Of India And Ors.
Civil Writ Petition No. 3835 of 1997,
Decided On : OCTOBER 7, 1999

Headnote:

ARMY ACT - DISABILITY PENSION - CASUAL LEAVE - ATTRIBUTABLE TO MILITARY SERVICE - INTERPRETATION OF REGULATIONS - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: 1. A person subject to the Army Act, who suffers an injury while on casual leave, resulting in invalidation from army service on medical grounds, is entitled to disability pension if the injury is attributable to or aggravated by military service. 2. The onus of proving that the injury is not attributable to military service lies with the employer, not the employee. 3. An injury suffered during the course of employment in the army is normally attributable to army service unless the contrary is shown. 4. Casual leave is treated as duty, and a person on casual leave is deemed to be on duty. 5. If a person on casual leave suffers an accident resulting in invalidation from army service due to disability, the injuries are attributable to army service. MAIN LEGAL POINT: An injury suffered by a member of the armed forces while on casual leave for a specific purpose is attributable to army service and entitles the person to disability pension.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Ex. Naik in the Bengal Engineering Group, suffered an accident while returning from his brother's marriage on casual leave. He was seriously injured and later invalided out of military service with 100% disability. His claim for disability pension was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the injury was not attributable to or aggravated by military service.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's injury was attributable to army service and that he was entitled to disability pension. The court relied on the presumption that an injury suffered during the course of employment in the army is normally attributable to army service, the onus of proving otherwise lies with the employer, and the fact that casual leave is treated as duty.

Issues: 1. Whether a person subject to the Army Act, who suffers an injury while on casual leave, resulting in invalidation from army service on medical grounds, is entitled to disability pension. 2. Whether the onus of proving that the injury is not attributable to military service lies with the employer or the employee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person subject to the Army Act, who suffers an injury while on casual leave, resulting in invalidation from army service on medical grounds, is entitled to disability pension if the injury is attributable to or aggravated by military service. The court relied on the presumption that an injury suffered during the course of employment in the army is normally attributable to army service, the onus of proving otherwise lies with the employer, and the fact that casual leave is treated as duty.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order passed by the respondents rejecting the petitioner's claim for disability pension, and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner disability pension in accordance with the rules.

Judgment

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. A person subject to Army Act, if suffers an injury, when on casual leave, which ultimately resulted in his invalidation from the army service, on medical ground, would be entitled to receive the benefits of disability pension or not, is the precise question that falls for determination in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner, Ex. Naik Manjit Singh, was enrolled in Bengal Engineering Group in Draftsman Trade on 3rd May, 1963. The petitioner continued to serve and was posted at Headquarter 7th Infantry Division at Ferozepur Cantt. as Naik in the year 1973. The petitioner had proceeded on pre-sanctioned 10 days casual leave to attend his younger brothers marriage at his native place. The petitioner left his Headquarter on 27th November, 1973. However, whie returning from the place of marriage in a jeep, to his native place, the jeep in which he was travelling met with the accident with a Truck op 3rd December, 1973. The petitioner was seriously injured and after some treatment was evacuated at military hospital at Ferozepur, the petitioner was treated at various medical hospital and the Medical Board had placed him under Low Medical Category EEE with 100% disablement for army service. On 20th October, 1976, the petitioner was boarded out of military service with 100% disability. His case for disability pension was processed by his Unit, but the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the CCDA (P) Allahabad. On 26th September, 1977, the petitioner filed an appeal under the rules against the rejection of his request for disability pension but the same was also rejected, vide order dated 26th December, 1981, Annexure P-6. Thereafter the petitioner appears to have served a legal notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure after a considerable lapse and the case was also taken up by the President of the Indian Ex-Service League, Union Territory Chandigarh with the Central Government but the same was not accepted by the government. The representation was also rejected, though the notice served through the counsel remained un-replied, compelling the petitioner to file the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Upon notice, the respondents filed a detailed reply. Preliminary objections were taken with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court as well as that the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. On merits, it was stated that the petitioner has not stated the correct facts in the writ petition. The petitioner had not taken 7 days casual leave but had taken 10 days casual leave from 27th November, 1973 to 6th December, 1973. It is conceded that while the leave, he met with the accident on 3rd December, 1973. His admission to the military hospital, at Ferozepur on 5th December, 1973 as well as treatment in other military hospitals is also not disputed. The case pleaded by the respondent for rejection of the claim of the petitioner in the present case is as under:-

"The petitioners disability Pension Claim was submitted to the CCDA (P), Allahabad and the same was rejected as his invaliding disability (ID) was not accepted as attributable to or aggravated by military service. His appeal against this rejected order was also rejected by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. This fact was communicated to the petitioner by them vide registered letter No. 223674/R-68/Pen-A dated 29th August, 1978. A copy of this letter is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1. 3) That the date of enrollment of the petitioner is denied being wrong. In fact, the petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 30th May, 1963. Rest of the para is not denied.

4) That this para is denied being wrong and baseless. The true position regarding date and duration of the Casual Leave taken by the Petitioner has already been explained ion para 2 above. In fact, the petitioner got injured while returning to his village along with the marriage party after at






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top