Ex Nb Sub Nathu Tali vs UOI & Others on 15 October 2025

O R D E R

15.10.2025

MA No 91/2024

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 61/2024

2. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for directing the Respondents to determine, sanction and release disability element of disability pension @20% and its rounding off to 50% wef

01/11/2022 and pay the arrears to the applicant as per the provisions of PCDA (P), Prayagraj Circular No 527 dated 25/4/2014, Rules and Regulations as per Order and circular issued by the Central Govt from time to time.

3. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army (BEG) on 23/10/1996 in medical category AYE and was discharged from service on 31/10/2022 under Rule 13 (3) item I (i) (a) after rendering 26 years and eight days of service. The applicant was granted service pension for life forthe qualifying service. Further, the applicant had sustained severe injury, “Undisplaced Fracture Tibial Spine (Rt)”, on 02/9/2014 while on annual leave as he had lost balance of his motorcycle when it slipped into a small crater and fell down injuring his right knee and leg for which he was treated at Military Hospital and consequently placed on low medical category. As per the Report on Accidental and Self Inflicted Injuries of the Applicant dated 03/9/2014, Annexure A/4, the injury of the accident was classified as severe. A court of inquiry was held on 26/12/2014 held at HQ 475 Engineer Brigade Camp, opined that the injury sustained by the applicant, Fracture Spine of Tibia, on 02/9/2014 during his leave, when he fell down from his motorcycle while returning home from the market and the injury sustained by the individual is not attributable to military service and no one is to be blamed for the same. However, there was a causal connection of the injury sustained by the applicant as it was beyond his control and there was no foulplay on his part, Annexure A/5. The RMB held on 17/9/2022 at the Military Hospital, Jodhpur, prior to his discharge from service, recommended the applicant to be released from service in low medical category A2(P) and assessed his disability @20% for life, considered it as NANA, Annexure A/6. Applicant was informed by the Record Office that he is not eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension vide letter dated 10/11/2022 in accordance with relevant rules and existing medical /administrative provisions. Both the First and Second Appeals of the applicant against rejection of his claim were also rejected by the Respondents. Placing reliance on a number of Orders/judgements, inter alia, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharamvir Singh Vs UOI &Ors, Civil Appeal No 4949/2013, decided on 02/7/2013, the applicant submits that the applicant is clearly eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension, as an accident which occurs when a man is not strictly on duty but it can still be attributed to service provided it involved risk relating to existence of his service, as contained in Clause 12 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards 1982. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

4. The Respondents have filed a detailed Reply Statement. While not disputing the basic facts, they have submitted that the applicant was discharged from service on 31/10/2022 on completion of his terms of engagement under Rule 13 (3) I (i) (a) of Army Rules, 1954. He had rendered 26 years and eight days of service for which he was granted service pension for life. While serving with 475 Engineer Brigade, he was granted 16 days Annual Leave for the period 31/8/2014 to 15/9/2014. During the leave, the applicant met with an accident and sustained injury on 02/9/2014 at his home town.Accordingly, a Court of Inquiry was conducted to investigate the circumstances under which the applicant had sustained injury and according to the findings of the said Court of Inquiry, the Applicant while coming back from the market to his home, lost balance of his motorcycle as it slipped into a small crater. His father was the pillion rider with him. He fell down and sustained injury to his right knee and leg. His father has taken him to Military Hospital, Jodhpur, where he was admitted for treatment before being transferred to Military Hospital Khadki for further treatment. The Court of Inquiry has also opined that the injury sustained by the applicant while on leave and, therefore, the injury sustained by the applicant is not attributable to military service, Annexure R/2. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant “UndisplacedFracture Tibial Spine (Rt)” @20% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. Both the first and second appeal of the applicant against rejection of his claim were rejected by the competent authority on the ground that the applicant sustained injury when he was on leave and was not performing any bona fide military duty at the material time of sustaining the injury. The circumstances of the incident have no causal connection with military service and, hence, the disability is conceded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service in terms of Para 6, 9 and 10 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2008. The decision arrived at has also been communicated to the applicant. Respondents further submit that in terms of Para 53 (a) of Pension

Regulations for the Army 2008, Part I, the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension and consequently its rounding off benefits cannot be conceded.

5. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

6. It is evident from the material place on record that the Applicant was granted 16 days Annual Leave wef 31/8/2014 to 15/9/2014. During the said leave period, the applicant sustained injury on 02/9/2014 while returning home from the marketon a motorcycle with his father as the pillionrider, the motorcycle slipped and he fell down and sustained injury. He was treated at Military Hospital and was downgraded to low medical category. The Court of Inquiry that had gone into circumstances under which the applicant sustained injury had opined that the applicant sustained injury due to an accident which was not selfinflicted and considered it as not attributable to military service as the injury was sustained during his leave period at home. It is prudent to observe that while the applicant sustained injury at home, the Respondents/Unit concerned had shown no alacrity in discharging him from service consequent to his having been placed in low medical category and he was allowed to complete his terms of engagement and was discharged from service only on culmination of his terms of engagement.As he was allowed to continue in service for more than eight years from the date of his sustaining the injury while on leave, itreflects that the successive Commanding Officers of the Unit, where he was serving, had been more than sympathetic and it was evident that acute empathy was shown to the Applicant. Thus, he was discharged from servicewef 31/10/2022 on completion of his terms of engagement under Rule 13 (3) I (i) (a) of Army Rules 1954. He had rendered 26 years and eight days of service and was granted service pension for life. The duly constituted RMB held on 08/9/2022 held prior to his discharge from service assessed the disability of the applicant, “Undisplaced Fracture Tibial Spine (Rt)” @20% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.

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. The case of the applicant is also covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI &Ors Vs Jujhar Singh, Civil Appeal No 4281 of 2006, decided on 15/7/2011, the relevant portion of the ibid Judgment reads as follows :- “16. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge to failed to appreciate that under Regulation 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, inasmuch 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”. The appeal is allowed. No costs”.

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 during his leave period with 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 as the Disability of the Applicant was considered as Neither Attributable to nor Aggravated by Military Service.

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

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

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

(SANJIV MITTAL)

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

cda/-