UNION OF INDIA & ORS vs EX. NAIK RAM SINGH

UNION OF INDIA & ORS vs EX. NAIK RAM SINGH

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9654 OF 2014

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                …  APPELLANTS

      v.

EX. NAIK RAM SINGH                       …  RESPONDENT

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. The appellants, Union of India and three others, have taken

an exception to the judgment and order dated 23rd December 2010

of   the   Armed   Forces   Tribunal,   Chandigarh   Bench   at

Chandimandir (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants were

directed   to   release   the   disability   pension   quantified   at   80%

disability for life to the respondent from the date of his discharge

1

from military service. The appellants were directed to pay arrears

of   disability   pension   restricted   to   a   period   of   three   years

immediately preceding filing of the application by the respondent

before the Tribunal. Interest @10% per annum was granted on the

arrears.

3. The respondent was enrolled in the Army on 4th June 1965.

After rendering colour service for 10 years and 88 days, he was

transferred to reserved establishment on 30th August 1975. During

his reserve period, he voluntarily got himself enrolled in Defence

Security Corps on 7th January 1976. On 6th November 1999, the

respondent   was   granted   annual   leave.   He   proceeded   to

Kishanpura on the same day. While on leave, on 8th  November

1999, he suffered an accident. While crossing the road, he was hit

by a speedy scooter. As a result of the accident, he sustained head

injury and became unconscious. The Medical Board assessed the

percentage of the disability of the respondent at 80%. The Medical

Board placed the respondent in low medical category (EEE). On

that ground, he was invalidated out of service from 28th September

2000.

4. The respondent made an application to the Armed Forces

Tribunal praying for grant of disability pension. In the impugned

judgment,   the   Tribunal   relied   upon   its   decision   dated   15th

December 2010 in T.A. No.237 of 2010 (Ex. NK. Raj Pal v. Union

2

of India & Ors.). The Tribunal held that if an individual sustains

an injury during the period of any kind of authorized leave and his

act was not inconsistent with Military service, his disability is

deemed to be attributable to Military service.

5. On   6th  December   2013,   this   Court   issued   notice   to   the

respondent. After service of notice, the respondent did not appear.

While granting leave on 10th  October 2014, a fresh notice was

issued   to   the   respondent   which   has   been   duly   served.   The

respondent did not enter appearance even thereafter. 

6. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General urged

that there has to be a reasonable connection between the injuries

sustained by a member of Armed Forces resulting in disability and

the Military service. He invited our attention to Regulation 173 of

the   Pension   Regulations   for   the   Army,   1961   (for   short,   ‘the

Pension Regulations’). He also invited our attention to Rule 12 of

the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982. He

submitted that the accident occurred couple of days after the

respondent travelled from the place of his duty to leave station. He

would submit that the respondent was disentitled to disability

pension. He fairly pointed out that the decision of the Tribunal in

T.A.No.237 of 2010 relied upon in the impugned judgment, was

challenged   by   the   Union   of   India.   However,   the   special   leave

petition was dismissed summarily. He submitted that what holds

3

the field is the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India

& Ors. v. Vijay Kumar No.3989606 P, Ex­Naik1

. 

7. On facts, it is an admitted position that the respondent was

granted annual leave on 6th November 1999. He proceeded on the

same day to leave station. On 8th  November 1999, when he was

crossing the road, he suffered an accident. As noted earlier, his

disability was assessed at 80%. Regulation 173 of the Pension

Regulations reads thus.:

“173.Primary   conditions   for   the   grant   of

disability   pension.­Unless   otherwise

specifically   provided   a   disability   pension

consisting   of   service   element   and   disability

element may be granted to an individual who is

invalidated out of service on account of disability

which is attributable to or aggravated by military

service in non­battle casualty and is assessed at

20% or over.”

(underline supplied)

8. The   Entitlement   Rules,   1982   and   in   particular   Rule   12,

defines ‘Duty’. Clause (d) of Note 2 which is a part of Rule 12

clarifies that personnel while travelling between the place of their

duty to leave station and vice­versa, shall be treated on duty. It is

not   the   case   made   out   by   the   respondent   that   the   accident

occurred when he was travelling to leave station. It happened after

he reached the leave station.  Unless the disability is attributable

1 2015 (10) SCC 460

4

to or aggravated by military service and is more than 20%, the

entitlement to disability pension does not arise.

9. This Court in the case of  Vijay  Kumar1

, after considering

Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations and Rule 12 of the

Entitlement Rules, 1982, in paragraph 14 held thus.:

“14. The   Entitlement   Rules   for   Casualty

Pensionary Awards, 1982 are beneficial in nature

and ought to be liberally construed. In terms of

Rule   12,   the   disability   sustained   during   the

course of an accident which occurs when the

personnel of the armed forces is not strictly on

duty   may   also   be   attributable   to   service   on

fulfilling   of   certain   conditions   enumerated

therein. But there has to be a reasonable causal

connection   between   the   injuries   resulting   in

disability and the military service.”

(underline supplied)

10. What is held above, is the binding precedent. In the present

case, as noted earlier, two days after the respondent reached the

leave station, he met with an accident on a public road. There is

absolutely   no   nexus   between   the   Military   service   and   injuries

sustained   by   the   respondent.   There   is   not   even   a   causal

connection. The Tribunal has completely overlooked this aspect

which goes to the root of the matter. Hence, the respondent was

not entitled to the disability pension. 

5

11. Accordingly, Civil Appeal is allowed. Impugned Judgment

dated 23rd  December 2010 is hereby set aside. O.A. No.944 of

2010 filed by the respondent stands dismissed. No order as to

costs.

…………….…………J.

          (Abhay S. Oka)

…………….…………J.

           (M.M. Sundresh)

July 18th, 2022

New Delhi.

6