EX SUBEDAR GURDASS SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is claiming disability pension. His claim stands rejected vide letter dated 18-02-1998.The writ petition is pending in this court since 22-02-1999. Number of opportunities were granted to file the objections. This was not done. On 05-09-2000 the petition was admitted. Counter has not been filed. It is in these circumstances, this petition is being taken up for final disposal.

(2.) On 15-12-1996, the petitioner alongwith his wife Smt.Chhoti Devi had gone to attend a religious ceremony. The scooter on which they were travelling was hit by a Tipper No.JK01B-4325. The petitioner suffered multiple injuries. A departmental inquiry was held. The petitioner was exonerated. It was concluded that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of a civil Tipper having registration NO.JK01B-4325. On account of the injury so sustained the petitioner was discharged from service. He has been denied disability pension. This was on the ground that the injury was neither attributable nor aggravated by military service. It is this aspect of the matter which is required to be taken note of. The Judicial precedents are directly in favour of the petitioner. The Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Madan Singh Vs Union of India, 1999 (6) SCC 459 allowed the disability pension when the concerned employee was not on duty. He was on casual leave. It was observed that the provisions in this regard are to be given liberal interpretation and the concerned employee though on casual leave was allowed disability pension.

(3.) In N/K Sandhu Singh Vs Union of India, 1995(3) SCT 242, the writ petitioner was a heavy weight boxer. He had represented services in different levels in the sports events. During the course of strenuous training he complained pain in his chest. This according to the petitioner was on account of blows which he had received during his sports carreer in army as boxer. There was no suggestion in the written statement filed by the respondents that the disability was caused by any factor other than injury during practice session. In these circumstances thepetitioner was held entitled to disability pension.