Case Title: Union of India V. Ex Naik Ram Singh
According to the Supreme Court, military members cannot get a disability pension if there isn't even a direct link between their military service and their disabilities.
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and MM Sundresh noted that the entitlement to disability pension does not exist unless the impairment is caused by or made worse by military service and is more than 20%.
The army officer was given yearly leave on November 6, 1999. The following day, he travelled to Kishanpura. On November 8, 1999, while on leave, he was in an accident. A swift scooter struck him as he was crossing the street. He suffered a brain injury as a result of the collision and lost consciousness. The Medical Board determined that he was 80% disabled. He was given a poor medical category by the medical board (EEE). He was declared ineligible for duty as of September 28, 2000, due to this reason. He requested the Armed Forces Tribunal to give him a disability pension in his application. The Tribunal ordered the delivery of the lifetime disability pension, which was calculated as an 80% disability as of the date of his military discharge. To reach this conclusion, the Tribunal cited an earlier ruling (Ex. NK. Raj Pal v. Union of India), in which it was decided that if a person gets hurt while on any type of authorised leave and his actions weren't in conflict with military service, his disability is considered to be related to military service.
The Union of India argued in their appeal that there must be a plausible link between a service member's injuries that result in disability and their military duty. Both Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 and Regulation 173 of the Army Pension Regulations from 1961 were mentioned. It was argued that the employee was ineligible for a disability pension since the accident happened a few days after he left the location of his employment to depart from the station. The ruling in Union of India & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar was cited by the Center.
There must be a plausible causal relationship.
The accident in this case happened after he arrived at the departure station rather than while he was travelling to it, the court noted. The bench noted that there is no right to a disability pension unless the handicap is more than 20% severe and is caused by or made worse by military service.
The bench further highlighted that in Vijay Kumar, it was clearly stated that there needed to be a plausible causal link between the disabilities caused by the injuries and military service. The bench acknowledged the appeal and noted:
"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".