Supreme Court Rebukes RBI for Remaining a Bystander as YES Bank Operated Clandestinely  ||  Supreme Court: Lower Fresh Bids Alone Cannot Justify Cancellation of an Auction  ||  Supreme Court Directs Delhi Police to Produce Section 163 BNSS Orders and Preserve CCTV Footage  ||  Supreme Court Affirms Menstrual Hygiene as a Fundamental Right, Warns States of Contempt  ||  Supreme Court Flags AI-Generated Fake Judgments Submitted in a Party’s Case Compilation  ||  Karnataka High Court: Vijay Mallya’s Flamboyant Lifestyle Hinders Settlement of Bank Claims  ||  Delhi High Court: Women can be Booked for Gang Rape without Physically Committing it  ||  Delhi High Court: Litigants Must Track Their Cases and Cannot Blame Lawyers for Their Own Inaction  ||  Allahabad High Court: Contract Workers Must Prove Work Parity With Regular Staff for Equal Pay  ||  Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts to Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within Six Months    

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. vs. Ram Singh - (Supreme Court) (18 Jul 2022)

Unless the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is more than 20%, the entitlement to disability pension does not arise

MANU/SC/0898/2022

Service

The Appellants, Union of India and three others, have taken an exception to the judgment and order of the Armed Forces Tribunal. By the impugned judgment and order, the Appellants were directed to release the disability pension quantified at 80% disability for life to the Respondent from the date of his discharge from military service. The Appellants were directed to pay arrears of disability pension restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding filing of the application by the respondent before the Tribunal. Interest @10% per annum was granted on the arrears.

On facts, it is an admitted position that the Respondent was granted annual leave on 6th November 1999. He proceeded on the same day to leave station. On 8th November 1999, when he was crossing the road, he suffered an accident.

The Entitlement Rules, 1982 and in particular Rule 12, defines ‘Duty’. Clause (d) of Note 2 which is a part of Rule 12 clarifies that, personnel while travelling between the place of their duty to leave station and vice-¬versa, shall be treated on duty. It is not the case made out by the Respondent that the accident occurred when he was travelling to leave station. It happened after he reached the leave station. Unless the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is more than 20%, the entitlement to disability pension does not arise.

In the present case, 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. Impugned Judgment is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : DISABILITY PENSION   PAYMENT   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved