Ex Naik Budha Ram Matwa (Army) vs UOI & Others on 7 October 2025

**O R D E R

07.10.2025**

**MA No 596/2018**

1. 1. The applicant has filed this MA praying for condonation of delay involved in filing the OA. Taking into consideration the reasons stated in the MA to be genuine, the Application for condonation of delay is allowed and MA is disposed off accordingly.

**OA No 549/2018**

1. 2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to produce the original copy of Release Medical Board Proceedings of the Applicant and the Impugned Order, Annexure A/1, as well as the previous orders alongwith the findings of RMB holding the disability neither attributable nor aggravated may be quashed and set aside being arbitrary and illegal. The applicant has further prayed that he be declared to be entitled for grant of disability pension from the date of discharge, ie, 01/6/2015 alongwith benefit of Broadbanding of the disability pension from 50% to 75% wef the same date and suitable compensation by way of costs may also be paid to the applicant for mental agony and litigation.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army as a Sepoy on 22/11/1997 in medical category SHAPE-I/AYE and no disease or disability was noted in his recruitment papers by the recruiting medical officer. During his service span, the applicant was awarded Long Service Medal and Siachen Glacier Medal for his distinguished service in High Altitude Area. While in service, the applicant suffered head injury on 10/9/2013 and was treated at the military hospital and became permanently disabled due to this severe injury. The applicant was discharged from service on 01/6/2015 in low medical category with more than 20% disability and was granted only service pension. His disability pension claim was rejected due to adverse findings of the medical board with regard to attributability and aggravation of disease, Annexure A/2. First Appeal of the applicant against rejection of his disability pension was also rejected by the Respondents. He further submits that action of the Respondents was arbitrary and smacks of mala fide against the applicant which declared the disability, Head Injury, neither attributable to nor aggravated by service is not sustainable under the eyes of law as the injury was sustained while the applicant was in service on 10/9/2013 while serving with 224 Field Regiment and, hence, needs to be declared as arbitrary. Further in terms of Regulation 423 (c) of the Regulations for the Medical Services for Armed Forces, Para 10 (b) of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008, the applicant is entitled for grant of disability pension. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI & Ors, Civil appeal No 4949/2013, decided on 02/7/2013, UOI & Ors Vs Rajbir Singh, Civil Appeal No 2904/2011, decided on 13/2/2018 as also in the case of UOI & Ors Vs Angad Singh Titaria, Civil Appeal No 11208 of 2011, decided on 24/2/2018. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

4. Vide Reply Statement, the Respondents have submitted that the Applicant was enrolled in the Army (Artillery) on 22/12/1997 and was discharged from service on 31/5/2015 being placed in medical category lower than SHAPE -1 AND unwilling to continue in service under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iii) (a) (i) read in conjunction with Army Rule 13 (2A) of Army Rules 1954, due to the disability, "(i) Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Diffuse Axonal Injury, (ii) Maxillo Facial Injury and (iii) Closed Head Injury Effects of Traumatic Optic Neuropathy Left Eye". The Release Medical Board held on 29/1/2015 prior to his discharge from service assessed these disabilities of the applicant @20% each for life and considered all these disabilities as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with military service. Under the provisions of Govt of India, Ministry of Defence letter dated 01/9/2005, as amended vide letter dated 31/5/2006 and IHQ of MoD (Army) letter dated 20/7/2006, the competent authority considered the attributability/aggravation of the case of applicant and upheld the decision of the RMB proceedings. Therefore, he was not granted disability element of disability pension in terms of Para 179 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, which was duly communicated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 02/9/2015 with an advice to the applicant to prefer an Appeal to the Director PS -4, AG's Branch, Army HQ within six months from the date of receipt of the letter, if he is not satisfied with the decision of the competent authority. The Appeal dated 26/11/2015 against rejection of the disability element of pension of the applicant was rejected by IHQ of MoD (Army) vide their letter dated 07/2/2017 on the grounds that the applicant sustained injuries on 10/9/2013 as the injury sustained by the applicant and military service had no causal connection, which was also communicated to the applicant vide Record Office letter dated 22/2/2017, with an advice to prefer a Second Appeal, if desired. However, instead of preferring a Second Appeal, the applicant had approached the Record Office through his Application dated 12/6/2018, which was suitably replied to by the Record office. The Respondents further submit that the OA filed by the applicant is badly barred by law of limitations as prescribed in Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007. In support of their arguments, the Respondents have placed reliance, inter alia, on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C Jacob Vs Director of Geology and Mining and Anr, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a dead or a stale claim is not permitted to be revived and the person who sleeps over his right is not entitled for any indulgence. Based on the factual submissions made herein, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA with costs.

5. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The issue to be deliberated is whether the applicant is eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension for an injury sustained by him while on his leave at his home town, as prayed for in the OA.

6. It is evident from the record that the applicant was enrolled in the Army - Regiment of Artillery - on 22/12/1997. We have perused the copy of Court of Inquiry held under the aegis of 318 Med Regiment that had gone into the circumstances under which the applicant sustained injury on 10/9/2013 at 2200 hours. Smt Bhavri Devi, wife of the applicant as the Witness No 1, had deposed before the Court of Inquiry that her husband had consumed liquor on the night of 10/9/2013 and left from his married accommodation No 135/2, Dogra Colony on his Motorcycle without wearing a helmet as he had only one helmet which he left at his home before leaving. The Court of Inquiry, after examining the witnesses including the wife of the applicant had opined that the applicant met with an accident on 10/9/2013 at about 2145 hours near the divider/junction on the Ajmer - Nasirabad Road, which is five Kms from his quarter and the head injury sustained by the applicant because of his not wearing a crash helmet and also he was under the influence of liquor and that the applicant had no reason to be there at that point of time. The Court of Inquiry also opined that the injury sustained by the applicant is not attributable to military service. The applicant was discharged from service 31/5/2015 being placed in low medical category lower than SHAPE I and his unwillingness to continue in service under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iii) (a) (i) of Army Rules. He had rendered 17 years, four months and 27 days of service and was granted service pension for the qualifying service. The RMB held on 31/12/2014 prior to the discharge of the applicant assessed the disabilities of the Applicant, "(i) Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Diffuse Axonal Injury, (ii) Maxillo Facial Injury and (iii) Closed Head Injury Effects of Traumatic Optic Neuropathy Left Eye" @20% each for life and considered all these disabilities as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service as also not connected with military service. It is prudent to observe that the wife of the applicant during her deposition before the Court of Inquiry had unequivocally stated that her husband went out of the quarter on his Motorcycle without wearing a crash helmet and that too with no apparent reason at such an unearthly hour to leave his quarter to go to the Highway after consuming liquor, resulting in the applicant sustaining severe brain injury, leading to his early discharge from service. Thus, it is apparent that the injury sustained by the applicant was his own making with no causal connection between the injury sustained by him and the military duty.

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. 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.

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

11. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

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

(SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A)

cda/-

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)