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 23 rd
 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 4 th
  June 1965.
After   rendering   colour   service   for   10   years   and   88   days,   he   was
transferred to reserved establishment on 30 th
 August 1975. During
his   reserve   period,   he   voluntarily   got   himself   enrolled   in   Defence
Security   Corps   on   7 th
  January   1976.   On   6 th
  November   1999,   the
respondent   was   granted   annual   leave.   He   proceeded   to
Kishanpura   on   the   same   day.   While   on   leave,   on   8 th
  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 28 th
 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   15 th
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   6 th
  December   2013,   this   Court   issued   notice   to   the
respondent. After service of notice, the respondent did not appear.
While   granting   leave   on   10 th
  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, Ex­Naik 1
. 
7. On facts, it is an admitted position that the respondent was
granted annual leave on 6 th
  November 1999. He proceeded on the
same   day   to   leave   station.   On   8 th
  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   Kumar 1
,   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   23 rd
  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 18 th
, 2022
New Delhi.
6