MANJIT SINGH EX NAIK Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A person subject to Army Act, if suffers an injury, when on casual leave, which ultimately resulted in his invalidation from the army service, on medical ground, would be entitled to receive the benefits of disability pension or not, is the precise question that falls for determination in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner, Ex. Naik Manjit Singh, was enrolled in Bengal Engineering Group in Draftsman Trade on 3rd May, 1963. The petitioner continued to serve and was posted at Headquarter 7th Infantry Division at Ferozepur Cantt. as Naik in the year 1973. The petitioner had proceeded on pre-sanctioned 10 days casual leave to attend his younger brother's marriage at his native place. The petitioner left his Headquarter on 27th November, 1973. However, whi'e returning from the place of marriage in a jeep, to his native place, the jeep in which he was travelling met with the accident with a Truck op 3rd December, 1973. The petitioner was seriously injured and after some treatment was evacuated at military hospital at Ferozepur, the petitioner was treated at various medical hospital and the Medical Board had placed him under Low Medical Category 'EEE' with 100% disablement for army service. On 20th October, 1976, the petitioner was boarded out of military service with 100% disability. His case for disability pension was processed by his Unit, but the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the CCDA (P) Allahabad. On 26th September, 1977, the petitioner filed an appeal under the rules against the rejection of his request for disability pension but the same was also rejected, vide order dated 26th December, 1981, Annexure P-6. Thereafter the petitioner appears to have served a legal notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure after a considerable lapse and the case was also taken up by the President of the Indian Ex-Service League, Union Territory Chandigarh with the Central Government but the same was not accepted by the government. The representation was also rejected, though the notice served through the counsel remained un-replied, compelling the petitioner to file the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Upon notice, the respondents filed a detailed reply. Preliminary objections were taken with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court as well as that the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. On merits, it was stated that the petitioner has not stated the correct facts in the writ petition. The petitioner had not taken 7 days casual leave but had taken 10 days casual leave from 27th November, 1973 to 6th December, 1973. It is conceded that while the leave, he met with the accident on 3rd December, 1973. His admission to the military hospital, at Ferozepur on 5th December, 1973 as well as treatment in other military hospitals is also not disputed. The case pleaded by the respondent for rejection of the claim of the petitioner in the present case is as under:-