1. Personnel on casual leave suffered injuries in a scooter accident — Claim for disability pension — Dispute over attributability to military service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1061
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
The Secretary, Government Of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dharambir Singh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4981 of 2012
Decided on : 20-09-2019.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When Armed Forces personnel is availing casual leave or annual leave, is to be treated on duty.
(2) Disability Pension – Determining factor is a causal connection between accident and military duties.
(1) When Armed Forces personnel is availing casual leave or annual leave, is to be treated on duty.
(2) Disability Pension – Determining factor is a causal connection between accident and military duties.
Subject
DISABILITY PENSION - ATTRIBUTABILITY TO MILITARY SERVICE
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Army Act, 1950 – Section 3(i) – Rule 11(a) of Leave Rules for the Services, Volume-I (Army) – Active duty – When Armed Forces personnel is availing casual leave or annual leave, is to be treated on duty – Present is not the case covered by definition of Section 3(i) of the Act. (Paras 11 to 14)
(B) Service Law – Disability Pension – Armed Forces – Clause (b) of Regulation 423 of Medical Regulations – During leave period, respondent met with accident while riding Scooter and suffered head injury resulting in 30% disability and discharge from service – Claim for disability pension was rejected by Medical Board on the ground that disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service – Question whether a disability or death is attributable to or aggravated by military service or not, is to be decided by Medical Board – Determining factor is a causal connection between accident and military duties – Injury or death must be connected with military service howsoever remote it may be – Injury or death must be intervention of armed service and not an accident which could be attributed to risk common to human beings – When a person is going on a scooter to purchase house hold articles, such activity, even remotely has no causal connection with military service – There was no material available to Brigade Commander to return a finding that disability was attributable to military service – Opinion of Medical Board is final in terms of Rule 17 of 1982 Rules and Regulation 423 (d) of Medical Regulations – Order passed by Tribunal set aside and Original Application filed by respondent dismissed. (Paras 14, 18, 20, 22 and 37)
Facts of the Case:
Challenge in present appeal is to an order dated March 7, 2011 passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, Regional Bench at Chandimandir1, granting disability pension to respondent, as injury was found to be attributed to military service.
Findings of the Court:
Percentage of disability as well as whether the disability is attributed to or aggravated by military service has to be assessed by the Medical Board. Purpose of COI is to examine the conduct of the personnel of Armed Forces, whereas, the Medical Board examines, the causal connection with the injury with the military services and also the extent of disability. Thus, COI and the opinion of the Medical Board both have different objects and purposes to achieve.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. A.K.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mona Sinha, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. A.K.Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mona Sinha, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether injuries sustained during casual leave are automatically attributable to military service or require a causal connection between the accident and military duties. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Status of being on duty during leave does not automatically establish attributability; a causal connection between the injury and military service must be established. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 20 , 23 )
4. Disability pension is admissible only if the injury is attributable to or aggravated by military service, requiring a causal connection beyond mere on-duty status. (Para 15 , 16 , 20 , 36 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of the Tribunal set aside — Original Application dismissed. (Para 37 )
6. Does being on casual or annual leave mean a person is on duty for disability pension purposes?
Yes, personnel on casual or annual leave are treated as being on duty. However, this status alone is not the sole criterion for deciding the attributability of a disability or death to military service. (Para 14 , 36 )
7. What is the requirement for an injury to be considered attributable to military service for disability pension?
There must be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, however remote, between the incident resulting in disability and military service. Injuries resulting from entirely private acts common to human existence are not attributable. (Para 15 , 16 , 20 , 36 )
8. What is the legal distinction between a Court of Inquiry (COI) and a Medical Board in disability pension claims?
A COI examines the conduct of the personnel to determine blame or departmental liability. The Medical Board's opinion regarding the actual cause of disability and its causal connection to military service is final. (Para 19 , 22 , 23 )
9. Is the concept of unmilitary activity a valid legal basis for granting disability pension?
No. The court held that unmilitary activity is not an expression used in the rules or regulations and is too vague and indefinite to serve as a basis for attributability. (Para 26 )
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated March 7, 2011 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, Regional Bench at Chandimandir, [for short, ‘Tribunal’] , granting disability pension to the respondent Dharambir Singh, as the injury was found to be attributed to military service.
2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent joined Territorial Army on December 28, 1981 and was discharged on December 13, 1999. He was granted two days casual leave from January 25, 1999 to January 26, 1999 when posted at Jalandhar Cantt. During the leave period, he met with an accident while riding a scooter and suffered head injury with Faciomaxillary and compound fracture 1/3rd Femur (LT). A Court of Inquiry [for short, ‘COI’] was conducted to investigate into the circumstances under which the respondent sustained injuries. The Brigade Commander has given its Report dated August 18, 1999 that the injuries, occurred in peace area, are attributable to military service. One of the findings of the Report recorded under Column 3(c) is reproduced hereunder:
| "(c) Was anyone else to blame for the accident? (If so, indicate how and to what extent). | No one is to be blamed. In fact, he lost control of his own scooter." |
3. After rendering pensionable service of 17 years and 225 days, the respondent was discharged from service on December 13, 1999 pursuant to the report of the Medical Board dated November 29, 1999 which held the disability to be 30%. However, the claim for disability pension was rejected by the Medical Board on the ground that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. An appeal filed by the respondent against the rejection of his claim for disability pension was rejected by the Additional Directorate General, Personnel Services. It is thereafter the respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal referred to the judgment of this Court in Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India & Ors., (1999) 6 SCC 459 and held that the respondent is entitled to disability pension.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that though the respondent would be treated to be on duty even if he was on casual leave or annual leave but the injuries suffered must have causal connection as attributable to or aggravated by military service. The respondent in this case was admittedly going on a scooter to purchase electrical goods for his sister when he lost control while saving a cyclist, therefore, there is no causal connection between the injuries resulting in disability and military service. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon two recent judgments of this Court in Renu Devi v. Union of India & Ors., Decided on July 03, 2019 in Civil Appeal arising out of Diary No.37356 of 2017 & Anr. and Union of India & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar No.3989606 P, ExNaik, (2015) 10 SCC 460. This Court in Vijay Kumar examined the admissibility of disability pension, when personnel of Armed Forces are on leave. The Court declined the claim with the following findings:
“23. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the injury suffered by the respondent has no causal connection with the military service. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident resulting in the injury to the respondent was not even remotely connected to his military duty and it falls in the domain of an entirely private act and therefore the impugned orders cannot be sustained.”
5. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the claim of disability pension arises under two heads: one, under ‘injury’ and the other, under ‘disease’ cases. It is argued that the opinion of the Medical Board in respect of disease cases is final but, in respect of injury cases, the finding of the COI is final and is to be made basis of grant of disability pension. He refers to Para 520 of the Defence Services Regulations published in the year 1986, which w
