Ex Nk Pooran Singh Jodha vs UOI & Others on 25 August 2026

O R D E R

25.08.2026

MA No 393/2025

1. The Applicant has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay of more than 10 years involved in filing the OA, which would be considered alongwith the OA.

OA 273/2025

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying that by an appropriate order and direction in the nature thereof, the action of the Respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and that the Respondents be

directed to determine, sanction and release 30% disability element of disability pension alongwith its rounding off benefit @50% wef01/9/2015 with interest @8% from the date it was due till the actual date of payment to the applicant.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 23/3/2000 in medical category SHAPE - I and was discharged from service on 31/8/2015 under Rule 13 (3) item III (iii) of Army Rules 1954 in low medical category P2 (P), before completion of his terms of engagement being placed in low medical category lower than SHAPE I and not upto the prescribed medical standard. He had rendered 15 years, five months and 09 days of service. He was granted Invalid Pension for the rank of Naik wef 01/9/2015 for his qualifying service, which was revised from time to time. While in service, the applicant was granted 30 days causal leave wef28/6/2010 to 27/7/2010. During this casual leave period, when the applicant was going to Didwana by motor cycle to withdraw cash from ATM with his nephew, who was driving the motor cycle, bearing registration No RJ 2011M 5842, at a speed of 40 Km per hour, a motor cycle, Hero Honda at a speed of 60 Kms/per hour coming from the opposite direction, slipped and banged at the motor cycle of the applicant due to narrow and sandy road. Applying sudden break to avoid head on collision resulted in the applicant falling down on the road due to the impact of the collision and got hurt severely and he became unconscious. He was evacuated to nearest civil hospital from there the applicant was shifted to MH, Jaipur where he was treated and the Injury Report was initiated. Upon discharge from the hospital and reporting to the Unit, a Court of Inquiry was conducted, but the applicant got a copy of the Court of Inquiry without the opinion of the Court and remarks of the Commanding Officer of the applicant. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, “RTA with Blunt Injury at Abdomen with Jejunal Perforation (Optd)” and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service and assessed @30% for life. It was also assessed at NIL for grant of disability Pension. Despite the disability of the applicant having been assessed @30% for life, the applicant was not granted disability element of disability pension. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that a person on annual/casual leave is deemed to be

on duty and there has to be an apparent nexus between the normal day to day life of a person subject to military service while on leave and the injuries suffered by him. Thus, non grant of disability pension merely because the applicant was on annual leave is illegal, arbitrary and made with non application of mind, In support of his arguments, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a number of Orders/judgments passed by the Hon’ble Courts and coordinated Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal. Having been aggrieved by the action of the Respondents, the applicant has filed this OA praying for grant of relief.

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts, they have submitted that while in service, the applicant met with an accident on 22/7/2010 and sustained injury while he was on 30 days casual leave granted to him wef 28/6/2010 to 27/7/2010. A Court of Inquiry that had gone into the circumstances under which the applicant sustained injury opined that the injury sustained by the applicant was not attributable to military service. The applicant was placed in low medical category (T) wef 04/10/2010 and based on the subsequent review medical board, the applicant was placed in low medical category P2 Permanent wef 03/9/2011 for the disability, “RTA with Blunt Injury at Abdomen with Traumatic Jejunal Perforation (Optd)”. In reply to the show cause notice issued to the applicant with regard to his retention in service having been placed in low medical category, the applicant expressed his willingness to continue in service due to his financial distress, however, due to non availability of suitable alternative appointment commensurate with his low medical category, the applicant was not recommended for further retention in service by the Commanding Officer of the Unit. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from service. The duly constituted RMB assessed the said disability of the applicant @30% for life with net assessment qualifying for grant of disability pension @ NIL for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with military service. Accordingly, the applicant was not granted disability element in terms of Para 17 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I. The position was communicated to the Applicant by the Record Office vide their letter dated 12/1/2016, with an advice to him to prefer an Appeal to the Appellate Committee

in case he was not satisfied with the decision of the competent authority. While the applicant has not submitted First Appeal as advised to him, the applicant submitted his personal applications dated 12/2/2025 and 10/3/2025 under Right to Information Act, 2005, followed by a Legal Notice dated 23/6/2025 through his counsel for grant of disability pension, which were suitably replied to by the Record Office. With regard to the Miscellaneous Application filed by the applicant, praying for condonation of delay of ten years involved in the filing the OA, the Respondents have submitted that the OA filed by the applicant ten years after the date of his discharge from service is barred by Law of Limitation and, therefore, not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.

5. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. The issue that is to be adjudicated is as to whether the applicant is eligible for grant of disability element for an injury sustained by him while he was on leave.

6. It is evident from the material on record that the applicant had sustained injury on 22/7/2010 at his home town while he was on 30 days Casual Leave granted to him for the period from 28/6/2010 to 27/7/2010 and was treated on being evacuated to Military Hospital, Jaipur. The Court of Inquiry that had gone into the circumstances under which the applicant sustained injury while on the said leave, opined that the injury, “RTA with Blunt Injury at Abdomen with Jejunal Perforation (Optd)”, is not attributable to military service, which was also duly endorsed by the Commanding Officer of the Unit, vide his Certificate dated 08/4/2011, Annexure R/4. The applicant was discharged from service on 31/8/2015 under Rule 13 (3) item III (iii) (a) (i) of Army Rules 1954 before completion of his terms of engagement on medical grounds as no sheltered appointment was available in his Unit upon having been placed in low medical category. He had rendered 15 years, five months and nine days of service and was granted service pension for life.

7. The question on attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs when the individual was on duty/authorized leave of any kind, has been

settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Government of India & Others Vs Dharambir Singh in 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”.

8. In yet another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Civil Appeal No 9654 of 2014, decided on 18/7/2022, in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Ex Nk Ram Singh, the relevant extract reads as follows :- “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.

11. Accordingly, Civil Appeal is allowed. Impugned Judgment dated 23rd December 2010 is hereby set aside. O.A. No.944 of 2010 filed by the respondent stands dismissed. No order as to costs”.

9. Further, in Judgment dated 15/7/2011 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No 4281 of 2006 in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Jujhar Singh, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held the view, the relevant extract of which is appended below :-

“16. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that under Regulation 179 a personnel can be granted disability pension only if he is found suffering from disability which is attributable to or aggravated by military service and recorded by Service Medical Authorities. In the case on hand, medical authorities have recorded a specific finding to the effect that disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service. This fact has not been appreciated either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court has also failed to appreciate that the Medical Board is a Specialized Authority composed of expert medical doctors and it is the final authority to give information regarding attributability and aggravation of the disability to the military service and the condition of service resulting in the disablement of the individual. These relevant facts have not been considered by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.

17. As rightly pointed by the counsel for the Union of India, the High Court failed to appreciate that even though the respondent sustained injuries while he was on annual leave in 1987, he was kept in service till superannuation and he was superannuated from service w.e.f. 01.07.1998. It is relevant to point out that he was also granted full normal pension as admissible under the Regulations. In the case on hand, in as much as the injury which had no connection with the military service even though suffered during annual leave cannot be termed as attributable to or aggravated by military service. The member of the Armed Forces who is claiming disability pension must be able to show a normal nexus between the act, omission or commission resulting in an injury to the person and the normal expected standard of duties and way of life expected from member of such forces. Inasmuch as the respondent sustained disability when he was on annual leave that too at his home town in a road accident, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that he is entitled to disability pension under Regulation 179 is not based on any material whatsoever. Unfortunately, the Division Bench, without assigning any reason, by way of a cryptic order, confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.

18. In view of our discussion, the judgments of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench are set aside. We make it clear that the respondent is entitled to "full normal pension" which he is already getting as per the Regulations, but not entitled to "disability pension".

10. Keeping in view the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) and the clear parameters enunciated for determining attributability of a fatality/disability, we find no Causal connection of the injury sustained by the Applicant with the Military Service. We are, therefore, of the view that the prayer of the applicant for grant of Disability Element of Disability Pension has no merit and is rejected.

OA 273/2025 with MA 393/2025 No 2896826W Ex Nk Pooran Singh Jodha

11. In-fine, we find that the OA lacks strength on all counts and, hence, is dismissed.

12. No order on costs.

13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off.

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-