IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.09.2025 UNION OF INDIA …. Petitioner Versus NO.3391859L EX. NK RAJESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present : Ms. Krishna Dayama, Senior Panel counsel for the petitioner.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 19.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which, respondent No.1 has been allowed the benefit of disability pension by rounding off the disability element from 30% to 50% for life w.e.f. from the day next to the date of his discharge from service i.e.

01.10.2013 on the ground that the same is perverse.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the report of medical examination of respondent No.1 to hold that though the disability of ‘Severe Head Injury And Traumatic Third Nerve Palsy (Re), have been found in respondent No.1, but the said disability has been held to be ‘neither attributable to nor aggravated by the Military service’. Hence, the grant of benefit of disability pension to respondent No.1 @ 50% as against 30% for life by the Tribunal by placing reliance upon the judgment of in Union of India and others vs. Ram Avtar, 2014 SCC Online SC 1761 is incorrect.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file with her able assistance.

4. Firstly, learned counsel for the petitioner-UOI has not been able to dispute the fact that even while on the annual leave, an army personnel is to be treated as being on duty, for all intent and purposes as per Army Regulations. In the present case, the accident was suffered by respondent No.1 during his annual leave and that too while going to purchase railway ticket for his return journey to the unit. Once, the said fact has not been rebutted, the injury which was suffered in the accident, has to be treated as attributable to the military services as it has the connection with the military services.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1926 of 1999, titled as Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. Union of India and others, decided on 17.08.1999, held that the grant of disability pension is governed by the various rules in the Defense Service Regulations and as per Rule 10 of the said Regulations, the period of casual leave counts as duty period. Further, in case where an army personnel is travelling either for the purpose of joining or to join the family back after coming from the unit or vice versa, the same is to be treated as part of the duty. Hence, it cannot be said that the act of respondent No.1 coming back after booking the ticket for the journey back to join the Unit and that too, while being on duty and meeting with an accident on the way which, led to the death, is not attributed to or connected with the military service.

6. The same issue was again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2433 of 2011, titled as Union of India and another vs. Surendra Pandey, decided on 18.09.2014 wherein it has been held that travelling back to join the family from the Unit and meeting with an accident on the way, has to be treated as connected with and attributed to the military service so as to grant the special family pension to the wife of the deceased officer. The reliance was placed upon the judgment in Madan Singh Shekhawat’s case (supra).

7. While deciding the Civil Appeal No. 5625 of 2008, titled as Ravindran P.M. vs. Union of India and others, decided on 11,09.2008, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that when an officer meets with an accident while in possession of an outpass, which outpass gives the jurisdiction to the personnel concerned to travel outside the military area, the happening of an accident during such travel and injuries suffered or the de