Ex Hav Dinesh Chand Sharma (Army) vs UOI & Others on 11 March 2026

O R D E R

11.03.2026

1. By way of this Application under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has prayed for grant ofDisability Element of Disability Pension @ 20% along with Rounding Off Benefits to 50% wef 01.08.2019 and that the arrears be paid along with interest @12% per annum.

2. The brief facts of the case as enumerated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 24.04.2003. While posted to 19 WEU located at Rangapara (Assam), the Applicant was granted Casual Leave from 01.06.2015 to 27.06.2015. While on leave at his native place, on 05.06.2015 he sustained injury while saving little children playing on road from about to be overrun by a speeding motorcycle and he was hit. Later, the Applicant was hospitalized at 155 BH at Tezpur and was treated. The duly constituted Court of Inquiry opined his injury as Not Attributable to Military

Service in a perfunctory manner without applying its mind. The Applicant was placed in permanent low medical category and, consequently, after rendering 16 years, 7 months and 15 days of service, he was discharged from Service on 31.07.2019 on medical grounds. The duly constituted Release Medical Board, held at the time of his discharge from Service, assessed his disability “Undisplaced Fracture Posterior Malleolus (Lt) Ankle” @20% for life and opined it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). The Applicant has been granted Service Pension for life, however, Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50% has not been granted on the grounds of the disability being considered as NANA. The Applicant contends that he suffered from the injury while saving innocent children from the accident while he was on Casual Leave and the Casual Leave is treated as part of duty. Therefore, injury sustained by him during Casual Leave should be considered as Attributable to Military Service and, consequently, the Applicant should be granted Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50%. In support of his claim, the Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Madan Singh Shekhawat Vs UOI & Ors 1999 AIR (SC) 1378 and 1995 (Sup 6) SCC 232 Joginder Singh (Lance Dfr) Vs UOI. The Applicant has also placed reliance on various judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of Armed Forces Tribunal and submitted that he is eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension duly rounded off to 50% from the date of his discharge. The Applicant made representations as also served Legal Notice through his Counsel for grant of Disability Pension, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed the present OA.

3. The Respondentshave filed a detailed reply to the Application. While not disputing the basic facts presented by the Applicant, the Respondents have submitted that the Applicant suffered the injury at his hometown while on casual leave, which has no causal connection to military service. The duly constituted Court of Inquiry also considered the injury as Not Attributable to Military Service. As per injury report, the disability was opined as Not Attributable to Military Service. Pursuant to placement in low medical category, the Applicant rendered his unwillingness to continue in service on 14.10.2018 and, accordingly, his Commanding Officer did not recommend for further retention of the Applicant in service. Since the Applicant’s disability was considered as NANA, his claim for grant of Disability Pension was rejected by PCDA (P) in terms of Rule 53 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 (Part-

1) read in conjunction with Rule 179 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part-1). 1stand 2ndAppeals preferred by the Applicant against rejection of Disability Element of Disability Pension have also rejected by the Competent Authority on 19.03.2020 and 11.03.2021 respectively. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that the Applicant sustained injury at his hometown while on leave, which has no causal connection to military service and was considered as Not Attributable to Military service, therefore, he is not eligible for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension and also the Rounding Off Benefits. The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

4. We have heard Learned Counsels forboth the parties and perused the material placedon record.

5. It is not in dispute that the Applicant sustained injury at his hometown while on Casual Leave. Contrary to his assertion in OA that the Applicant was hit from behind by the motorcycle, his own statement as per Injury Report states what while he was playing with children outside his house, he slipped while hurrying up to save children from a bike. Hence, it is quite clear that he was not performing any military duty at the time of accident. Moreover, he should have taken precaution not to play with children on road and he himself was at fault for the injury. Accordingly, the Injury Report and the duly constituted Court of Inquiry opined that the injury sustained by the Applicant was Not Attributable to Military Service, there being no causal connection of the act of the Applicant with Military Service.

6. Para 6 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, reads as follows :-

“6. For award of disability pension/special family pension, a casual connection between disability or death and military service has to be established by appropriate authorities”.

7. The question on attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs during the time the individual is on authorized leave of any kind has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Government of India & Ors Vs Dharambir Singhin Civil Appeal No 4981/2012 decided on 20.09.2019, relevant portion of which reads as under:- “36. We find that summing up of the following guiding factors by the Tribunal in Jagtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors and approved in Sukhwant Singh and in Vijay Kumar do not warrant any change or modification and the claim of disability pension is required to be dealt with accordingly:- (a) The mere fact of a person being on 'duty' or otherwise, at the place of posting or on leave, is not the sole criteria for deciding attributability of disability/death. There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and present in his unit. It should similarly apply when he is on leave; notwithstanding both being considered as 'duty'.

(b) If the injury suffered by the member of the Armed Force is the result of an act alien to the sphere of military service or in no way be connected to his being on duty as understood in the sense contemplated by Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules 1982, it would not be legislative intention or nor to our mind would be permissible approach to generalise the statement that every injury suffered during such period of leave would necessarily be attributable.

(c) The act, omission or commission which results in injury to the member of the force and consequent disability or fatality must relate to military service in some manner or the other, in other words, the act must flow as a matter of necessity from military service.

(d) A person doing some act at home, which even remotely does not fall within the scope of his duties and functions as a Member of Force, nor is remotely connected with the functions of military service, cannot be termed as injury or disability attributable to military service. An accident or injury suffered by a member of the Armed Force must have some casual connection with military service and at least should arise from such activity of the member of the force as he is expected to maintain or do in his day-to-day life as a member of the force.

(e) The hazards of Army service cannot be stretched to the extent of unlawful and entirely un-connected acts or omissions on the part of the member of the force even when he is on leave. A fine line of distinction has to be drawn between the matters connected, aggravated or attributable to military service, and the matter entirely alien to such service. What falls ex- facie in the domain of an entirely private act cannot be treated as legitimate basis for claiming the relief under these provisions. At best, the member of the force can claim disability pension if he suffers disability from an injury while on

casual leave even if it arises from some negligence or misconduct on the part of the member of the force, so far it has some connection and nexus to the nature of the force. At least remote attributability to service would be the condition precedent to claim under Rules 173. The act of omission and commission on the part of the member of the force must satisfy the test of prudence, reasonableness and expected standards of behaviour.

(f) The disability should not be the result of an accident which could be attributed to risk common to human existence in modern conditions in India, unless such risk is enhanced in kind or degree by nature, conditions, obligations or incidents of military service.

37. In view of the above discussion and the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 61 of 2010, we find that the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The Order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the Original Application filed by the respondent is dismissed.”

8. In yet another case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Others Vs Ex Nk Vijay Kumar, in CA No 6583/2015, decided on 26/8/2015, holding the view that the injury sustained while at home town cannot be made attributable to military service, the excerpts of which are as follows :- “……..The respondent went for six weeks sick leave and reported back for review and invalidated from service with effect from 28.2.2006. After the accident when the respondent was not actually performing military service, the opinion of the Medical Board “aggravated due to stress and strain of military service” does not appear to be in proper perspective. After the accident, when the respondent was not actually performing his duties and therefore disability cannot be attributed to military service nor can it be said to have been aggravated due to stress and strain of military service.

19. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the injury suffered by the respondent has no causal connection with the military service. The tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident resulting in injury to the respondent was not even remotely connected to his military duty and it falls in the domain of an entirely private act and therefore the impugned orders cannot be sustained”.

9. Keeping in view the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the clear parameters enunciated for determining attributability of Disability which starts with Injury Report and the opinion of the fact finding body which is the Court of Inquiry and the findings of the Release Medical Board, it is established that there was no causal connection of the Applicant’s injury to Military Service. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Disability has no causal connection to Military Service making the Applicant clearly ineligible for disability element of disability pension.

10. The judgments passed by the coordinate Benches of AFT were decided before pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dharammbir Singh (Supra) wherein the issue of disability occurring during leave period was discussed in detail and certain parameters were laid down for categorizing such disability as Attributable/Not Attributable to Military Service. Further, the principles settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex Nk Vijay Kumar (Supra), were also not discussed by the Tribunals.

11. In-fine, we find that the OA is devoid of merit and,hence, is dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stand disposed off.

12. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

Ssy/-