JAGMAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent thereby denying him his right to receive the disability pension. Facts leading to the filing of this petition are on 15th October,1987 the petitioner was on Casual Leave. He alongwith Havaldar Balbir Singh went to meet his relation. While coming back from Bahadurgarh in order to rejoin the duty at their unit located at Delhi Cantt. they met with an accident at about 7.00 AM. A DTC bus suddenly approached from behind. It hit the scooter of the petitioner from rear side. Consequently, the petitioner sustained sever injuries on his left leg. He was evacuated in a taxi to the Base Hospital of the Army, Delhi Cantt. Petitioner remained admitted in the hospital where he was operated. He was treated in the hospital and, therefore, put in low medical category. It is further the case of the petitioner that a Court of enquiry was held to investigate the circumstances under which he sustained the injuries. The Commanding Officer after investigating the matter opined that the injury sustained by the petitioner was attributable to military service. The Brigade Commander also recorded his opinion expressing the same view as opined by Commanding Officer i.e. the injury sustained by the petitiner was attributable to military service. In para 2 Order No.116 dated 4.7.88 published by the concerned unit, it was recorded that the petitioner sustained the said injury while on duty. On account of the said injury, he was put in low medical category which was reviewed from time to time by the concerned medical authorities and finally placed in low medical category w.e.f. 6.3.92. The Release Medical Board which was held on 4.9.92 declared the percentage of disability of the petitioner as 30% and recommended disability pensioin to the petitioner. On account of his being invalid the petitioner was discharged from the service in low medical category. It was recorded in the discharge certificate that the aforesaid injury was attributable to military service.

(2.) . Respondent disputed that the injury was attributable to military service. In fact the petitioner did not lodge the FIR regarding this incident, therefore, the injury sustained by him could not be attributed to military service.

(3.) . So far as the question that the petitioner was on Casual Leave, it is not disputed. Nor the accident is in dispute. Even the factum that the petitiner was admitted in the Army Hospital at Delhi Cantt. and remained under medical treatment has not been disputed. The only defence taken by the respondent is that since the FIR was not lodged, therefore, it was not sure whether petitioner met with accident on account of the fault of the DTC bus or that of the petitioner himself.