IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 10.11.2025 Union of India and Others ...Petitioners Versus Ex. NK Kuldeep Singh and Another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Sr. Central Government Counsel, for the petitioners.

Mr. Chakshu Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 25.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal granting the benefit of disability element of disability pension to the respondent, who had suffered 90% disability in an accident which he suffered while taking the dead body of his wife from an Army Hospital to his native village for cremation in an ambulance.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that as, the respondent was on annual leave, and he suffered an accident in the ambulance he was travelling while taking the dead body of his wife from Army hospital to the native village, the said act cannot be treated as attributable to the military service, which fact has been ignored by the Tribunal while awarding benefit of disability element of disability pension which error should be rectified by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4981 of 2012 titled as The Secretary, Government of India and ors. Vs. Dharambir Singh decided on 20.09.2019 to contend that there has to be at-least some remote connection I the injury sufferd with the military service has to exist even if, the disability is suffered in an accident by a soldier, which remote connection is missing in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon the judgment in Civil Appeal No.9654 of 2014 titled Union of India and others Vs. Ex. Naik Ram Singh decided on 18.07.2022 to hold that any accident suffered by an army personnel on a public road, at the time when such army personnel availing the benefit of leave, has no nexus with military service therefore, on the basis of said judgment, the benefit of disability pension granted by the Tribunal to the respondent needs to be set aside.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records with their able assistance.

4. Certain facts which have gone undisputed needs to be noticed to arrive at the conclusion that whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the grant of disability pension in favour of respondent is valid or not.

5. The wife of the respondent got admitted in the Army Hospital and had unfortunately died. The respondent had gone to collect the body of his wife from the army hospital so as to be taken to his native village for cremation. The ambulance which was carrying the dead body, was provided by the military authorities. It was during the said transportation of the dead body from the army hospital to native village, the accident occurred.

6. From the facts it is clear that the ambulance/vehicle in which the injuries were sustained provided by the Army to traport the body of the dead wife to be taken to his native village for cremation. Further, the respondent was on a leave so as to take care of his ailing wife who had unfortunately thereafter died while in the army hospital. These facts cannot be ignored to hold that army was involved till the accident took place and even the vehicle which was involved in the accident which was provided for transporting of dead body of respondent’s wife from the army hospital to his native village was arranged by the army authorities.

7. The findings which have recorded by the Tribunal the leave granted by the respondent is to be treated as duty period, when all the facts are conjoined, accident occurred while on a duty period and that too in an ambulance which has been provided by an Army, qua such accident took place in which respondent