- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jagmal Singh. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner challenged the respondent's refusal to grant disability pension after an accident on 15 October 1987. On that day the petitioner, while on casual leave and returning to duty at Delhi Cantt. from Bahadurgarh with Havaldar Balbir Singh, was struck from the rear by a DTC bus at about 7:00 AM and sustained severe injuries to his left leg. He was taken to the Base Hospital, Army, Delhi Cantt., where he was admitted, operated upon and treated. His medical category was reduced, ultimately leading to placement in a low medical category with effect from 6.3.92. A Release Medical Board on 4.9.92 assessed his disability at 30% and recommended disability pension. The Commanding Officer and the Brigade Commander, after a Court of Enquiry and investigation, recorded that the injury was attributable to military service. The unit published Order No. 116 dated 4.7.88 recording that the petitioner sustained the injury while on duty. The petitioner was discharged as invalid in low medical category and the discharge certificate recorded the injury as attributable to military service. The petitioner filed the present petition after the respondent disputed attribution, asserting that absence of an FIR meant the injury could not be attributed to service.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an injury sustained by an army personnel while on casual leave (which, under Rule 10 of the Leave Rules, counts as duty) is attributable to military service and therefore entitles the petitioner to disability pension.
- Whether the non-lodging of an FIR bars a finding that the injury was attributable to military service.
- Whether the administrative findings (Commanding Officer, Brigade Commander, unit order) and medical board recommendation suffice to entitle the petitioner to disability pension despite the absence of an FIR.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner sustained the injury while on casual leave; Rule 10 of the Leave Rules defines "duty" to include casual leave, so he was effectively on duty at the time.
- The Commanding Officer and Brigade Commander, after investigation, concluded the injury was attributable to military service; the unit's order recorded the injury as sustained while on duty.
- The Release Medical Board assessed 30% disability and recommended disability pension; he was discharged as invalid and the discharge certificate recorded the injury as attributable to military service.
- He was unconscious at the time of admission and thus could not have lodged an FIR; absence of an FIR should not defeat his claim.
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent disputed that the injury was attributable to military service, relying principally on the fact that no FIR was lodged; therefore, it could not be established whether the DTC bus or the petitioner was at fault.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ex. Sep. Vijay Pal Singh v. UOI & Ors., CW No. 4619/93 decided on 8.4.94 | That injury to an army personnel sustained while on casual leave still entitles him to disability pension because casual leave is treated as duty. | The court treated this Division Bench judgment as directly applicable and consistent with the present facts, and relied on it to support the petitioner's entitlement to disability pension. |
| Joginder Singh v. Union of India & Ors. SLP No. 3118/93 decided on 16th August, 1993 | Supreme Court authority that an injury sustained while on casual leave can be attributable to service and entitle the serviceman to disability pension. | The court relied on this Supreme Court decision (as cited in Ex. Sep. Vijay Pal Singh) as binding support for holding that the petitioner's injury while on casual leave entitled him to disability pension. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court recited the undisputed factual matrix: the accident occurred on 15 October 1987 while the petitioner was on casual leave; he was hospitalized, operated upon, and placed in a low medical category leading to invalid discharge. Administrative investigations (Court of Enquiry, Commanding Officer, Brigade Commander) and the unit order of 4.7.88 recorded that the injury was attributable to military service. A Release Medical Board declared 30% disability and recommended disability pension.
The court relied on Rule 10 of the Leave Rules, which defines "duty" and treats casual leave as counting towards duty, to conclude that injury sustained on casual leave falls within "duty" for attribution purposes. The court noted that the respondent did not ask the petitioner to lodge an FIR nor demand production of an FIR at any stage, and that the petitioner had been unconscious and taken to hospital by a companion (Havaldar Balbir Singh). Therefore, the mere non-lodging of an FIR could not be used to doubt the petitioner's account or the administrative findings attributing the injury to service.
The court then applied the cited precedents (the Division Bench decision in Ex. Sep. Vijay Pal Singh and the Supreme Court decision in Joginder Singh) which, according to the opinion, hold that injuries sustained while on casual leave entitle army personnel to disability pension because casual leave is treated as duty. Finding those authorities squarely applicable, the court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to disability pension.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF
Holding: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent to determine the petitioner's disability pension within one month and to pay arrears with interest at the rate of 12% per annum within two months. Future disability pension payments were ordered to be paid month by month by the 7th of each English calendar month.
Implications: The direct effect is that the respondent must calculate and pay the petitioner's disability pension and arrears with the specified interest and schedule. The opinion applies existing High Court and Supreme Court authority on injuries sustained during casual leave; it does not announce or discuss a new precedent beyond applying those authorities.
Usha Mehra, J.— Petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent thereby denying him his right to receive the disability pension. Facts leading to the filing of this petition are on 15th October, 1987 the petitioner was on Casual Leave. He alongwith Havaldar Balbir Singh went to meet his relation. While coming back from Bahadurgarh in order to rejoin the duty at their unit located at Delhi Cantt. they met with an accident at about 7.00 AM. A DTC bus suddenly approached from behind. It hit the scooter of the petitioner from rear side. Consequently, the petitioner sustained sever injuries on his left leg. He was evacuated in a taxi to the Base Hospital of the Army, Delhi Cantt. Petitioner remained admitted in the hospital where he was operated. He was treated in the hospital and, therefore, put in low medical category. It is further the case of the petitioner that a Court of enquiry was held to investigate the circumstances under which he sustained the injuries. The Commanding Officer after investigating the matter opined that the injury sustained by the petitioner was attributable to military service. The Brigade Commander also recorded his opinion expressing the same view as opined by Commanding Officer i.e the injury sustained by the petitiner was attributable to military service. In para 2 Order No. 116 dated 4.7.88 published by the concerned unit, it was recorded that the petitioner sustained the said injury while on duty. On account of the said injury, he was put in low medical category which was reviewed from time to time by the concerned medical authorities and finally placed in low medical category w.e.f 6.3.92 The Release Medical Board which was held on 4.9.92 declared the percentage of disability of the petitioner as 30% and recommended disability pensioin to the petitioner. On account of his being invalid the petitioner was discharged from the service in low medical category. It was recorded in the discharge certificate that the aforesaid injury was attributable to military service.
2. Respondent disputed that the injury was attributable to military service. In fact the petitioner did not lodge the FIR regarding this incident, therefore, the injury sustained by him could not be attributed to military service.
3. So far as the question that the petitioner was on Casual Leave, it is not disputed. Nor the accident is in dispute. Even the factum that the petitiner was admitted in the Army Hospital at Delhi Cantt and remained under medical treatment has not been disputed. The only defence taken by the respondent is that since the FIR was not lodged, therefore, it was not sure whether petitioner met with accident on account of the fault of the DTC bus or that of the petitioner himself.
4. From the above facts it is clear that the petitioner met with an accident on 15th October, 1987. He remained hospitalised and his medical category was also lowered. The competent authroity after investigation found that disability or injury was attributable to military service. Rule 10 of the Leave Rules defines “duty” and that Casual Leave counts towards duty as per the said Rule. Moreover, the Unit of the respondent had in fact published on 4.7.88 that the petitioner sustained aforesaid injury while on duty. At no stage the respondent demanded the petitioner to produce the FIR nor asked him to lodge report with the police. It is not disputed that when the petitioner sustained injury he was unconscious and in the unconscious state he was taken to Hospital by Havaldar Balbir Singh. Therefore, simply on account of non lodging of FIR cannot be made a ground to doubt the injury sustained by the petitioner. His case through out had been that he was hit by a DTC bus. In similar circumstances this Court in the case of Ex. Sep. Vijay Pal Singh v. UOI & Ors., CW No. 4619/93 decided on 8.4.94, while relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. Union of India & Ors. SLP No. 3118/93 decided on 16th August, 1993, held that injury to an army personnel even if sustained while he was on casual leave will still entitle him to disability pension as the army personnel on casual leave is treated to be on duty. The Division Bench Judgement of this court quoted above as well as of Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh (supra) squarely apply to the facts of this case.
5. Having regard to the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of our own High Court, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension even though he sustained injury while on casual leave. Accordingly directions are given to the respondent to determine the disability pension of the petitionr within one month from today and arrears be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a within two months from today. Future disability pension will be paid monthy by month by 7th of each English calendar month. With these observations the petition stands disposed of.
Alert