DHOOP SINGH EX-NAIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as a Sepoy in the year 1978 in the Regiment of Artillery and was allotted the trade of Wireless Operator. On the 2nd July, 1985, he was granted five days causal leave to visit his village Mandhan. He, accordingly, commenced his journey by train from their place of duty at Farbidkot on the 2nd" July, 1985 and got down at Railway Station, Rohtak the next day and from there proceeded to his village on his friend's Motor Cycle, and while on his way, suffered multiple injuries when the Motor Cycle met with an accident. The petitioner was, accordingly, hospitalised in various hospitals for almost two years and was, thereafter, discharged from the Army after being put in low medical category. His application for the grant of disability pension was declined and an appeal preferred before the Central Government was also rejected on 13th June, 1997 vide Annexure P-1 to the petition. The petitioner, has came to this Court impugning the aforesaid order.

(2.) On notice of motion, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it has been pleaded that the Release Medical Board which had examined the petitioner had assessed his disability at 40% for two years but as no finding had been recorded with regard to attributability and aggravation factor in the absence of an injury report as he had sustained injuries in a train accident on 3rd July, 1985 while on causal leave when he was not performing any military duty, he was not entitled to the payment of disability pension. Reliance for this assertion has been placed on Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-I) which inter alia provides that the disability pension could be granted if the disability could be attributed to or aggravated by Military Service. The respondents have also annexed Annexure R-1 dated 29th May, 1995 with their reply in support of the reasons given for rejecting the petitioner's claim.

(3.) Mr. Anand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had left Faridkot on 2nd July, 1985 on causal leave for five days and it was while he was proceeding to his leave station from his duty station that the accident had happened in which the petitioner had suffered serious injuries. He has urged that it had to be held that the petitioner was on military duty when he suffered the injuries and as such, his case was fully covered by Regulation 173 ibid. He has also relied on Rule 12(d) of the Entitlement Rules for Causal Pensionary Awards, 1982 (hereinafter called 'the Rules of 1982') in which it had been provided that when a person was proceeding from his duty station to his leave station or returning there from and travelling at public expense, on a railway warrant or in some other way, the presumption was that he would be deemed to be on duty. Reliance has also been placed on the Supreme Court decision in Joginder Singh (Lance Dafadar) v. Union Of India and Ors., 1997(2) R.S.J. 413 and on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jarnail Singh v. Union of India, 1998(1) S.LR. 418.