Ex Nk (TS) Singha Ram Rawat vs UOI & Others on 10 July 2026

O R D E R

10.07.2026

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying therein for grant ofDisability Element of Disability Pensionalong with Rounding Off Benefitswef 01.02.2016.

2. The brief facts of the case as enumerated by the Applicant are that the Applicant was enrolled in the Indian Army on 18.01.1999 and after rendering more than 17 years of service, he was discharged from Service in low medical category on 31.01.2016 on completion of terms of engagement. The Applicant met with road traffic accident on 09.10.2015 at his hometown while he was on 25 days Part of Annual Leave from 06.10.2015 to 30.10.2015 and sustained “Severe Head Injury”. Initially the Applicant was admitted in local hospital from where he was transferred to Military Hospital, Jaipur and he was treated in Service hospitals. Since the Applicant was due for discharge on completion of terms of engagement, he was discharged from Service on 31.01.2016. After discharge of the Applicant, a Court of Inquiry was held on 15.10.2016 and subsequent days to investigate into the circumstances under which the Applicant sustained theinjuries which opined that the injury sustained by the Applicant was not attributable to military service. Further, Release Medical Board of the Applicant was held on 25.10.2017, ie., afterapproximately two years of his discharge from service. The duly constituted Release Medical Board assessed his disability @ 60% for life and considered it as Neither Attributable to Nor Aggravated by Military Service (NANA). The Applicant has placed reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors (2013) 7 SCC 316 and UOI & Ors Vs Ram Avtar (2014) SCC Online 1761 and submitted that he suffered from the injury while in service, therefore, the injury should be considered as Attributable to Military Service and, consequently, the Applicant should be granted Disability Element of Disability Pension along with Rounding Off benefits from the date of his discharge from Service. In support of his claim, the Applicant has also placed reliance on Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarhjudgment dt 23.05.2014 in CWP No 17792/2013 (O&M) in the case of Barkat Masih Vs UOI & Ors,AFT (RB), Chandigarh judgment dt 12.03.2019 in OA No 691/2013 in the case of Naresh Kumar Vs UOI & Ors AFT (RB) Chandigarh Common Order dt 08.11.2011 in OA No 49/2011 in the case of Bhagwan Singh Vs UOI & Ors and 8 Others, and AFT (RB) Srinagar at Jammu Order dt 08.05.2023 in TA No 75/2016 in the case of Ex Hav Arup Laha Vs UOI & Ors. The Applicant made representation and also issued Legal Notice to the Respondents for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension along with Rounding Off benefits from the date of his discharge from Service, but to no avail. Therefore, the aggrieved Applicant has filed 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 “Severe Head Injury”on 09.10.2015 in a road accident at his hometown while on Part of Annual Leave, which has no causal connection to military service. After treating him in service hospitals, the

Applicant was granted Sick Leave from 30.01.2016 to 11.03.2016. On expiry of Sick Leave, the Applicant was placed in low medical category S1H1A1P3(P)E1 wef 22.03.2016. He was again admitted in Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt on 12.09.2016 after Review Medical Board. The duly constituted Court of Inquiry found that the Applicant sustained injury which was beyond his control and opined that the injury was not attributable to military service. Since the Applicant was under treatment at the time of his discharge, Release Medical Board was not conducted. Therefore, the Applicant was brought before Post Discharge Release Medical Board at Base Hospital, Delhi which assessed his disability @ 60% for life and considered it as NANA, there being no causal connection to military Service. As per Para 5 & 6 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008, causal connection between military service and disability has to be established by the appropriate authority and the mere fact that a disease has manifested during military service does not per se establish attributability to or aggravation by military service. Further, as per Para8 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, attributability/aggravation shall be conceded if causal connection between death/disablement and military service is certified by appropriate medical authority. In the present case, the Applicant sustained “Severe Head Injury” at his home town while he was on Part of Annual Leave which has no causal connection to military service and the duly constituted Court of Inquiry also opined that the injury sustained by the Applicant was Not Attributable to Military Service. Therefore, based on the findings of Court of Inquiry and the Injury Report, the duly constituted Post Discharge Release Medical Board considered his disability as NANA, there being no causal connection to military service. In view of the aforesaid averments, the Respondents have reiterated that 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 had sustained injury in a road accident at his hometownwhile on 25 days Part of Annual Leave. 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 and at the time of accident, he was not performing any military duty.

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 causal 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 Dharambir 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. In the present case, the Applicant met with road traffic accident on his motor cycle and was not performing any military duty and, hence, there was no causal connection to military service, in any manner whatsoever.

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/-