REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4281  OF 2006

Union of India & Ors.                       .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Jujhar Singh     .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) This appeal by Union of India is directed against the  

final judgment and order dated 04.01.2002 passed by the  

High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  

L.P.A. No. 5 of 2002 whereby the Division Bench of the  

High Court dismissed their appeal in limine.

2)  Brief facts:

(a) The  respondent  was  enrolled  in  the  Army  on  

27.06.1978.  In the year 1987, when he was on annual  

1

leave  to  his  native  place,  he  met  with  an  accident  on  

26.03.1987  and  sustained  severe  injuries  and  was  

admitted in the hospital from 26.03.1987 to 20.01.1989.  

Subsequently,  he  was  admitted  in  Military  Hospital,  

Dehradun  and  after  treatment  was  placed  in  medical  

category  BEE  (Permanent)  and  percentage  of  disability  

was ascertained as 20%.  After he joined the duty, he was  

kept  under  observation  by  the  Medical  Board  and  his  

disability was assessed as 60% for two years.  The Medical  

Board  also  opined  that  the  disability  was  neither  

attributable to nor aggravated by the military service.  

(b) The  respondent  was  superannuated  from  service  

w.e.f.  01.07.1998  and  he  was  granted  normal  service  

pension.  He made a representation before the authorities  

claiming  disability  pension  on  the  ground  that  he  was  

having  disability  on  the  date  of  retirement.   The  

representation was rejected by the authorities.   

2

(c) Against the rejection of disability pension claim, the  

respondent  preferred  a  writ  petition  being  C.W.P.  No.  

14290  of  1999  before  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  

Haryana.   Learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court,  by  

order  dated  20.07.2001,  allowed  the  writ  petition  by  

holding that the respondent herein is entitled for disability  

pension under Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations  

for  the  Army,  1961  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  

Regulations”).   

(d) Challenging  the  said  order,  the  appellants  herein  

preferred L.P.A. No. 5 of 2002 before the Division Bench of  

the  High  Court.   The  Division  Bench,  by  impugned  

judgment  dated  04.01.2002,  dismissed  the  appeal  in  

limine.   Aggrieved by the  said judgment,  the  appellants  

preferred  this  appeal  by  way  of  special  leave  petition  

before this Court.

3

3) Heard Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for  

the  appellant-Union  of  India  and  Mr.  Jujhar  Singh  

respondent, who appeared in person.

4) The  questions  that  arise  for  consideration  in  this  

appeal are:

(a) Whether the case of the respondent for disability  

is covered under Regulation 179 of the Pension  

Regulations for the Army (Part I) 1961?

(b) Whether the disability in an accident suffered by  

the  respondent  during  his  annual  leave  while  

doing his  personal  work would amount to  the  

disability  attributable  to  or  aggravated  by  

military service?    

5) Discussion:

We have already narrated the required factual details.  

It is seen that when the respondent was on annual leave,  

he  met  with  a  road  accident  at  his  native  place  and  

4

sustained  grievous  injuries  resulting  in  permanent  

disability.   It  is  further  seen  that  after  treatment  and  

returning from his leave, he continued in military service  

and w.e.f. 01.07.1998, the respondent was superannuated  

from service and he was granted normal service pension.  

According  to  the  respondent,  since  on  the  date  of  

retirement, he was permanently disabled, he is entitled for  

disability  pension  for  which  he  made  a  representation  

which was rejected by the authorities.   

6) It  was  contended  by  the  respondent  before  the  

learned Single Judge that at the relevant time when he  

had gone  on leave  he  remained in  military  service  and  

while attending to his normal duties at home he suffered  

disability and later superannuated with the said disability,  

hence eligible for disability pension.  The learned Single  

Judge  arrived  at  a  conclusion  that  the  writ  petitioner-  

respondent  herein  is  entitled  to  disability  pension  as  

envisaged under Regulation 179 of the Regulations since  

5

he retired in normal course and he was not invalidated  

from military service on account of his disability but the  

fact is that he was suffering from disability on the date of  

retirement  which  is  above  the  degree  of  20%.   He  also  

concluded that as per Defence Service Regulations, when  

a defence personnel goes on leave, he is counted on duty  

unless the leave is determined as unauthorized leave.  In  

this  way,  relying  on Regulation 179,  the  learned Single  

Judge  allowed  the  writ  petition  and  directed  the  

authorities  to  process  the  case  of  the  writ  petitioner  

(respondent  herein)  for  granting  disability  pension  in  

accordance with law.  When this order was challenged by  

the Union of India before the Division Bench of the High  

Court,  the  Division  Bench,  by  impugned  order  dated  

04.01.2002, dismissed their appeal without assigning any  

reason.

6

7)   In order to answer the above referred questions, it is  

useful to refer Regulation 179 which reads thus:

“Disability at the time of retirement/discharge 179. An individual retired/discharged on completion of  tenure  or  on  completion  of  service  limits  or  on  completion of terms of engagement or attaining the age  of 50 years (irrespective of their period of engagement),  if  found  suffering  from  a  disability  attributable  to  or  aggravated by military service and recorded by Service  Medical  Authorities,  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  invalidated out of service and shall be granted disability  pension  from  the  date  of  retirement,  if  the  accepted  degree of disability is less than 20 per cent or more, and  service element if the degree of disability is less than 20  per  cent.   The  service  pension/service  gratuity,  if  already sanctioned and paid, shall be adjusted against  the disability pension/service element, as the case may  be.  

(2) the  disability  element  referred  to  in  clause  (1)  above  shall  be  assessed  on  the  accepted  degree  of  disablement at the time of retirement/discharge on the  basis  of  the  rank  held  on  the  date  on  which  the  wound/injury was sustained or in the case of disease  on the date of first removal from duty on account of that  disease.”

8) It is clear that if a person concerned found suffering  

from disability  attributable  to  or  aggravated  by  military  

service, he shall be granted disability pension.  The other  

condition is that the disability is to be examined/assessed  

by  Service  Medical  Authorities  and  based  upon  their  

7

opinion  a  decision  has  to  be  taken  by  the  authority  

concerned.  The respondent should satisfy the conditions  

specified in the Regulation.  In this case, it is the definite  

stand  of  the  authorities  that  disability  has  neither  

occurred in the course of employment nor attributable to  

or aggravated by military service.  We have already pointed  

out and it is not in dispute that the respondent was on  

annual leave when he met with a scooter accident as a  

pillion rider and sustained injuries on 26.03.1987 at his  

native place.  He was not on military duty at the time of  

the accident in terms of Para 12 (d) of Entitlement Rules,  

1982  as  clarified  vide  Government  of  India,  Ministry  

referred letter No.1(1)/81(PEN)C/Vol.II dated 27.10.1998.  

In view of the same, the injuries sustained cannot be held  

to be attributable to the military service.

9) In this background, it  is useful to refer decision of  

this Court in Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation and  

Another vs.  Francis De Costa and Another,  (1996)  6  

8

SCC 1.  Though this decision arose under the Employees’  

State Insurance Act, 1948, we are of the view that since  

there  is  a  similar  provision  in  the  Employees’  State  

Insurance Act, namely, that the accident should have its  

origin  in  the  employment  and  the  same  should  have  

arisen out of and in the course of employment, the same is  

applicable  to  the  case  on  hand.   In  that  case,  the  

respondent  employee  while  going  to  his  place  of  

employment (a factory), met with an accident at a place  

which  was  about  only  one  kilometer  away  from  the  

factory.   The  accident  occurred  at  4.15  p.m.  while  his  

duty-shift was to commence at 4.30 p.m.  As a result of  

the accident, the respondent’s collar bone was fractured.  

The  question  before  this  Court  was  whether  the  said  

injury  amounted  to  “employment  injury”  within  the  

meaning of Section 2(8) of the Employees’ State Insurance  

Act,  1948 entitling the respondent to claim disablement  

benefit.  Answering in the negative, this Court held “a road  

9

accident may happen anywhere at  any time.  But such  

accident cannot be said to have arisen out of employment,  

unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  employee  was  doing  

something incidental to his employment.”

10) In  Union of  India  and Another vs.  Baljit  Singh  

(1996) 11 SCC 315, the respondent therein was enrolled  

in  the  Army  as  an  Apprentice  on  30.03.1975  and  was  

appointed in the service on regular basis w.e.f. 27.03.1977  

in the EME 177 Battalion.  While he was in service he had  

sustained moderately severe injury.  On the basis of the  

opinion  of  the  Medical  Board,  he  was  discharged  from  

service as an invalidated man on 31.05.1981.  In the writ  

petition filed by him, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh  

directed  the  authorities  to  pay  him  disability  pension.  

This  was  challenged  by  the  Union  of  India  before  this  

Court  by  way  of  appeal  by  special  leave.   From  the  

materials placed, this Court concluded that it cannot be  

said that the sustenance of injury per se is on account of  

10

military  service.   The  report  of  the  Medical  Board  of  

doctors  shows  that  it  is  not  due  to  military  service.  

Finally, it was held by this Court as under:

“In each case, when a disability pension is sought for and  made a claim, it must be affirmatively established, as a fact,  as  to  whether  the  injury  sustained  was  due  to  military  service or was aggravated which contributed to invalidation  for the military service.  Accordingly, we are of the view that  the  High  Court  was  not  totally  correct  in  reaching  that  conclusion”.

11) In  Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others vs.  

A.V.  Damodaran  (dead)  through  LRs.  and  Others,  

(2009) 9 SCC 140, the opinion of the Medical Board and  

acceptability or otherwise for awarding disability pension  

was considered.  The short question that was considered  

in that case was whether the High Court was justified in  

ignoring the report of the Medical Board in which it was  

clearly mentioned that disability of A.V. Damodaran was  

neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.  

On examination, the Medical Board had opined that the  

disability of A.V. Damodaran was not attributable to the  

11

military service nor has it been aggravated thereby and it  

is  not  connected with the service  as schizophrenia  is  a  

constitutional disease.  The legal representatives of A.V.  

Damodaran  filed  original  writ  petition  before  the  High  

Court  praying for  grant  of  disability  pension.   By order  

dated 20.12.2000, the learned Single Judge allowed the  

original  petition  and  declared  that  the  individual  was  

eligible  to  get  disability  pension  under  the  provisions  

contained in the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961  

and such other enabling provisions.  The Department filed  

a writ appeal before the High Court.  The Division Bench  

dismissed the said appeal finding no reason to interfere  

with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge.  

After  considering  Regulation  173  which  speaks  about  

primary conditions for the grant of disability pension and  

various other earlier decisions, this Court concluded that  

the Medical  Board is  an expert  body and its  opinion is  

entitled to be given due weight, value and credence.  In  

12

that case, the Medical Board has clearly opined that the  

disability of late A.V. Damodaran was neither attributable  

nor aggravated by military service.  In this way, this Court  

concluded  that  the  legal  representatives  of  A.V.  

Damodaran  are  not  entitled  to  disability  pension.  

However, in the facts and circumstances of that case, this  

Court directed that the amounts which have already been  

paid  to  the  LRs  of  deceased  A.V.  Damodaran  towards  

disability pension may not be recovered from them.  

12) In Ex. N.K. Dilbag vs.  Union of India and Others,  

2008 (106) Delhi Reported Judgment 865, a Full Bench of  

the  Delhi  High  Court  had  an  occasion  to  consider  the  

similar issue and eligibility of disability pension by Armed  

Forces Personnel.  After adverting to various decisions of  

this  Court  as  well  as  of  the  High  Courts,  it  concluded  

thus:

“24.  To  sum  up  our  analysis,  the  foremost  feature,  consistently highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,  is that it requires to be established that the injury or  fatality  suffered  by  the  concerned  military  personnel  

13

bears  a  causal  connection  with  military  service.  Secondly,  if  this  obligation  exists  so  far  as  discharge  from  the  Armed  Forces  on  the  opinion  of  a  Medical  Board the obligation and responsibility  a fortiori exists  so far as injuries and fatalities suffered during casual  leave are concerned.  Thirdly, as a natural corollary it is  irrelevant  whether  the  concerned  personnel  was  on  casual or annual leave at the time or at the place when  and where the incident transpired.  This is so because it  is  the  causal  connection  which  alone  is  relevant.  Fourthly,  since  travel  to  and fro  the  place  of  posting  may not appear to everyone as an incident of military  service,  a  specific  provision  has  been incorporated  in  the Pension Regulations to bring such travel within the  entitlement  for  Disability  Pension  if  an  injury  is  sustained  in  this  duration.   Fifthly,  the  Hon’ble  Supreme Court has simply given effect to this Rule and  has not laid down in any decision that each and every  injury  sustained  while  availing  of  casual  leave  would  entitle the victim to claim Disability Pension.  Sixthly,  provisions  treating  casual  leave  as  on duty  would  be  relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to  the right of the Authorities to curtail or cancel the leave.  Such  like  provisions  have  been  adverted  to  by  the  Supreme Court  only  to buttress their  conclusion that  travel to and fro the place of posting is an incident of  military service.  Lastly, injury or death resulting from  an activity not connected with military service would not  justify and sustain a claim for Disability Pension.  This  is  so  regardless  of  whether  the  injury  or  death  has  occurred  at  the  place  of  posting  or  during  working  hours.  This is because attributability to military service  is a factor which is required to be established.”  

In the light of our discussion, we fully endorse the views  

expressed by the Full Bench.

14

13) Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing  

for the Union of India has pressed into service the opinion  

of the Medical Board which reads as under:  

“1. Did the disability/ies exist before entering service?

No.

2. (a) In respect of each disability the Medical Board on  the  evidence  before  it  will  express  its  views  as  to  whether?

(i) It is attributable to service during peace or under  field service condition; or  

(ii) It has been aggravated thereby and remains so; or

(iii) It is not connected with service.  The Board should state fully the reasons in regard  

to each disability on which its opinion is based.

Disability A B C

1. FRACTURE SHAFT OF No No Yes TIBIA FEBULA (Lt) LOWER 1/3 2. SUPRA CONDYLAR  FRACTURE FEMUR (Lt)”

It  is pointed out that A, B and C refers (i),  (ii)  and (iii)  

which is not in dispute.  The above opinion makes it clear  

that  the  injury,  particularly,  the  fracture  is  not  

attributable to service and it is not connected with service.  

15

14) The proceedings of the Court of Inquiry are as under:  

“Proceedings of a Court of Inquiry  Assembled at 19 GUARDS (ATGM) C/o 56 APO On the day of 10 Jul 90 IN the order of Commanding  Officer  19  Guards  

(ATGM) For the purpose of Enquiring into the circumstances  

Under which No. 1367100 H NK  Jujhar  Singh  met  with  an  accident on 26 Mar 87 during his  Annual leave.

(Vide BROS No. 160 dt. 06 May 89) PRESIDING OFFICER 10-4743  Lt. KK Singh Members 1. JC-115678A Sub

P.C. Sharma 2. JC-166001 XNb.Sub Diwani Chand

The Court  having  assembled  pursuant  to  order  proceed  to  examine the witnesses.  

OPINION OF THE COURT The opinion of the court is as under:-

a) Inquiry of severe nature sustained by No.13677100 H.  NK Jujhar Singh during his Annual Leave is not attributable  to the Military Service.  

b) No. 1367100 H NK Jujhar Singh is not be blamed for  the injury sustained to him during accident.  

Presiding Officer Sd xxx IC47438 F Lt. KK Singh

Member Sd xx     JC-115678A Sub PC Sharma

Sd xx JC 16600 I X Nb Sub Diwani Chand.”

16

15) The  above  factual  details  and  materials  show that  

first of all, the respondent herein sustained injuries in a  

road accident at his home town during his annual leave  

which was not attributable to the military service.  It was  

strengthened from the opinion of the Medical Board that  

the injuries were not attributable to the service and it was  

also  not  connected  with  the  service.   In  A.V.  

Damodaran’s  case  (supra),  this  Court  has emphasized  

the importance of the opinion of the Medical Board which  

is an expert body and its opinion is entitled to be given  

due weight, value and credence.  

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  

17

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  

18

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.    

19

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.   

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.           (A.K. PATNAIK)  

NEW DELHI; July 15, 2011.    

20