Advocates:
ANIL KATIYARSATYENDRA KUMAR

Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL

APPEAL

NO.

3686

OF

2012

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6629 of 2011)

Union of India & Anr.

....Appellants

Versus

Talwinder Singh

....Respondent

O R D E R

1.

Leave granted.

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and

order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.599 of 2009 by which the High

Court has reversed the judgment and order of the Trial Court as

well as the First Appellate Court and granted the relief of disability

pension to the respondent.

2.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the

respondent was enrolled in the Infantry (Sikh Regiment) on

23.5.1987. He proceeded on annual leave on 31.3.1990 for a period

of two months to his home town. During his leave period, the

respondent suffered injuries being hit by a small wooden piece

“Gulli” in the play of children and thus, his left eye was seriously

damaged. He was admitted to Command Hospital, Chandimandir

Page 2

JUDGMENT

and remained there from 1.4.1990 to 25.4.1990. The respondent was

operated upon twice and, subsequently, was discharged giving him

sick leave from 26.4.1990 to 6.6.1990 and was placed in low

medical category ‘BEE’ (permanent).

3. The investigation/enquiry was conducted by Army Authorities

and the court of inquiry vide order dated 13.7.1990 came to the

conclusion that injuries sustained by the respondent were not

attributable to military service. The respondent was kept in sheltered

appointment upto 31.5.2003 for giving him an opportunity to

complete his terms of engagement. The respondent was examined

by the Release Medical Board (RMB) on 14.2.2003 for assessment

of degree and attributability/aggravation factors of the disability

‘Perforating Injury Left Eye’ and it came to the conclusion that

disability was 30% for life, however, the Board further declared that

the said disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by

military service. In view thereof, the claim of the respondent for

disability pension was rejected by the competent authority vide order

dated 7.8.2003.

4. The respondent filed Suit No.312 of 2004 before Civil Judge

(Senior Division) Sangrur, Punjab, seeking the relief of disability

pension which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

25.9.2006. Aggrieved, respondent preferred Civil Appeal No.150 of

2006 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge,

Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 2.9.2008. Respondent, not

being satisfied, preferred RSA No.599 of 2009 before the High

Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging the aforesaid judgments and

decree. Learned Single Judge reversed the concurrent finding of

facts by two courts below and allowed the appeal decreeing the suit

issuing direction to the appellants/ defendants to release payment of

disability pension alongwith 8% interest per annum from 31.5.2003,

within a period of 3 months.

Hence, this appeal.

5. Shri H.P. Raval, learned ASG appearing on behalf of Union

of India, has submitted that the High Court committed an error

allowing the appeal and reversing the judgments and decree of the

courts below as the case of the respondent could not fall within the

provisions of paragraph 179 of the Pension Regulations of the Army,

1961, Part-I, (herein after called the `Regulations’) as well as the

findings and opinion of the Medical Board, a finding that the injury

suffered by the respondent could neither be attributable to, nor could

be aggravated by the military service.

Therefore, the appeal

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

deserves to be allowed. The judgment and decree of the High Court

is liable to be set aside.

6.

On the contrary, Shri Vivek Gupta, learned counsel

appearing for the resp