| Headnote |
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982– rr. 12, 13, 17 & 19– Admissibility of disability pension, when personnel of Armed Forces are on leave – Respondent joined the Army in 1981– While he was granted two days casual leave from Jan.25, 1999 to Jan.26, 1999, he met with an accident riding scooter and suffered head injury, fracture – Court of Inquiry conducted to investigate into the circumstances under which he sustained injuries– Having rendered pensionable service, the respondent was discharged from service on Dec.13, 1999 in view of Medical Board’s report which held the disability to be 30%– Claim for disability pension rejected by Medical Board– Armed Forces Tribunal held the respondent entitled to disability pension – On appeal, held: In terms of Leave Rules, the casual leave and annual leave count as duty– However, in terms of Rule 11(a) of the said Rules, an individual on casual leave is not deemed to actually perform duty during such leave – 1982 Rules give expansive definition to the expression ‘duty’ – It includes the period when Armed Forces personnel is proceeding from his leave station or returning to duty therefrom– It includes even an accident which occurs when a man is not strictly on duty provided it involved risk which was definitely enhanced in kind or degree by the 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 – However, as per Regulation 423 of the Medical Regulations, such injury has to have causal connection with military service or such injury is aggravated by military service – In the instant case, Commanding Officer reported that the injury is not attributable to military service, but the Brigade Commander endorsed that the injury is attributable to military services – There was no material available to the Brigade Commander to return such finding when the evidence of the witnesses and the conclusion given by the Commanding Officer is that no one is to be blamed for the accident– Since the accident occurred when the respondent was purchasing house hold articles, it cannot be said that there is any causal connection between the injury and the military service – Order of the Tribunal set aside – Leave Rules for the Services, Volume-I (Army)– rr.10, 11(a)– Medical Regulations– Regulation 423 (a), (b) and (d) – Army Act, 1950 – ss.3(i), 9 – Pension Regulations for Army, 1961 – Regulation 173 – Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008 – Armed Forces. Leave Rules for the Services, Volume-I (Army) – rr.10, 11(a) – Held: When Armed Forces personnel is availing casual leave or annual leave, is to be treated on duty – Armed Forces. Army Act, 1950 – s.3(i) – Respondent in Army, was on two days casual leave when he met with an accident while riding scooter and suffered injuries– Discharged from service – Claim for disability pension – Held: Determining factor is causal connection between the accident and the military duties – Injury or death must be intervention of armed service, howsoever remote it may be– Further, in terms of s.3(i), “active service” means time during which a person who is subject to the Act, is attached to, or forms part of, a Force which is engaged in operations against an enemy engaged in military operations in, or is on the line of march to, a country or place wholly or partly occupied by an enemy, or is attached to or forms part of a Force which is in military occupation of a foreign country – Present is not the case covered by the said definition – When the person is going on scooter to purchase house hold articles, such activity, even remotely has no causal connection with the military service – Medical Regulations – Regulation 423 – Armed Forces. Armed Forces – Medical Regulations – Regulation 423(b) – Contradiction with r.12(f) of 1982 Rules – Discussed – Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 – r.12(f). Armed Forces – Claim for disability pension on account of injury suffered due to accident – Court of Inquiry assembled to investigate the circumstances leading to injury – Scope of, vis-a-vis assessment by the Medical Board – Discussed. |
