Ex Sep (ACP-1) Bhanwar Singh vs UOI & Others on 20 November 2025

ORDER

20.11.2025 Respondents Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying that the action of the Respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and against Article 14 of the Constitution and that the Respondents be directed to sanction : and release 30% Disability Element of Disability Pension alongwith its rounding off to 50% wef 01/5/2015 with interest @8% from the date of due to the date of actual payment to the applicant. Brief facts of the case as enunciated by the applicant are that the applicant was enrolled in the Army on 11/4/2000 and was discharged from service wef 30/4/2015 in the rank of Sepoy, before fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment under Rule 13 (3) Item III (a) (i) of Army Rules 1954, as he was not granted sheltered appointment for further retention in service by his Commanding Officer. He had rendered 15 years and 20 days of qualifying service. He was granted service pension for life for the rank of Sepoy (ACP I) which was revised from time to time. On 03/1/2009 at about 2100 hours, while the applicant was returning from his place of duty (Unit Location) to his Govt Married Accommodation located at Abdul Hamid Vihar, Gandhinagar Military Station, near the Brigade HQ, his motor cycle slipped on the turn and he sustained injuries, "Multiple Facial Injuries (Lt) sub Condylar Fracture Mandible and Traumatic Optic Atrophy (Lt) Eye" and was treated at the military hospital.While the applicant on the injury report had mentioned that he sustained injury while on his way to his married quarter, the Court of Inquiry had opined that the injury sustained by the applicant was not attributable to military service. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, "Post Traumatic OpticAtrophy (Lt) Eye" @30% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor ággravated by.military service and he was not granted disability element of disability pension under the provisions of Para 179 of Pension Requlations for the Army 1961, Part I. The applicant further submits that in terms of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982, as amended on 21/8/1984, the applicánt is eligible for grant of disability element of disability pension. which stipulate that when a man is not strictly 'on duty' as defined may ORCS also be attributable to service, provided that it involved risk which was definitely enhanced in kind or degree by nature, conditions, obligations or incidents of his service and that the same was not a risk common to human existence in modern conditions in India. Thus, for instance, where a person is killed or injured by another party by reason of belonging to the Armed Forces, he shall be deemed 'on duty' at the relevant time. Having beern aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA, praying for relief.

3. 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 30/4/2015 under Army Rule 13 (3) III (i) (a) () in conjunction with Army Rule 2 A before fulfilling the terms of engagement due to the disability, "Post Traumatic Optic Atrophy (Lt) Eye", because of non availability of suitable sheltered appointment in the Unit. He was granted service pension for life. As per Court of Inquiry that had gone into the circumstances under which the applicant was sustained injury opined that the injury sustained was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant @30% for life with net assessment qualifying for grant of disability pension at NIL for life. Accordingly, he was not granted disability element of disability pension in terms of Para 179 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I. Respondents further submit that the mere fact that a disease has manifested during military servíce does not per se establish attributability or aggravation by militäry service and as per Para 8 of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards 2008, attributabilty/aggravation shall be conceded if causal connection between death/disablement and military service is certified by the appropriate mediçal authority. In the instant case, the disability of the applicant has been conceded as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service by the duly constituted RMB held on 05/3/2015Hen Hence, the applicant is not entitled for grant of disability pension.

4. on record.

5. ORCES We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed It is evident from the material placed on record that the applicant sustained injury on 03/1/2009 when the motor cycle, on which he was riding back to his home after dropping his brother at the TCP Gate No 2 of Gandhi Nagar Military Station, skidded as he lost control of his Motor Cycle. The Court of Inquiry, that had gone into the circumstances under which he sustained injury, opined that the injury sustained by the applicant is not attributable to military service and no one is to be blamed for the incident. However, the Applicant in his statement mentioned on the Report on accidental and Self Inflicted Injuries - Officers, JCOs/OR IAFY-2006, that he sustained injury while he was on his way home from the Unit lines. The RMB assessed the disability of the applicant, "Post Traumatic Optic Atrophy (Lt) Eye", @30% for life and considered it as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, He was discharged from service wef 30/4/2015 under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iü) (a) (i) in conjunction with Army Rule 2 A due to non availability of suitable sheltered appointment in the Unit. He had rendered 15 years of service and was granted service pension for life. He was not granted disability element of disability pension.

6. It has been seern that the applicant himself had stated in the Court of Inquiry that he had gone to drop off his brother at TCP Gate which was purely a private act and by no stretch of imagination, the same can be made attributable to service. The Çourt of Inquiry also accordingly correctly categorized the injury as not attributable to service. In view of the categorical assertion of the Court of Inquiry, the applicant is not entitled to disability element and the OA is dismissed.

No order on costs.

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off. (SANJIV MITTAL) MEMBER (A) cda/ (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR) MEMBER (J)