SECRETARY, M/O DEFENCE & ORS. versus AJIT SINGH

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 934 · Decided: 06-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 934 
; 
A 
SECRETARY, M/O DEFENCE & ORS. 
.. 
V. 
AJIT SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2003) 
B 
MAY 6, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
~-
Service Law: 
c 
Anned forces: 
Army - Disability pension - Armyman having put in 4 
years 11 months Milita1y service - While on casual leave he 
suffered injuries due to electric shock - Resulting in 20% 
-c 
D disability - HELD: Would not be entitled to disability pension. 
The respondent, an Armyman, after about 4 years 
and 11 months Military service suffered injuries due to 
electric shock while on casual leave. He was declared 
E medically unfit and was accordingly discharged from 
service. He filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he 
was entitled to disability pension as according to him he 
,. 
sustained 20% disability. The trial court decreed the suit. 
The first appellate court and the High Court affirmed the 
' 
F decree. 
In the instant appeal filed by the Department it was 
contended for the appellant that since apart from the facts 
that the incident took place while the respondent was on 
casual leave and he had not completed 10 years of 
G service, the disability was not attributable to the Military 
service, the courts below erred in decreeing the suit. 
\.-
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Keeping in view the law laid down by this 
H 
934 
SECRETARY, M/O DEFENCE & ORS. v. AJIT SINGH 935 
Court in Keshar Singh* and Surinder Singh the judgment A 
of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set 
aside. [Para 5] [936-F] 
*Union of India & Ors. vs. Kehsar Singh 2007(12) SCC 
675 and Union of India & Ors. v. Surinder Singh Rathore 
8 
2008(5) sec 747, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2001(12) sec 675 
2008(5) sec 747 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 4 
Para 4 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.16 
of 2003. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.8.2001 of the High 
-> 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 4703 of D 
1999. 
8. Datta, ASG, T.V. Ratnam, M. Chandrashekhar, 8.K. 
Prasad, B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellants. 
Manish Raghav Nitin Jain, Dr. Vipin Gupta for the 
E 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the Punjab & F 
Haryana High Court. The appellants had filed an appeal before 
the High Court challenging the judgment dated 27-07-1999 of 
the District Judge, Bhiwani by which the appeal filed by the 
Union of India against the Judgment and decree passed by the 
learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Charkhi Dadri was 
G 
- ~ 
dismissed. 
2. Respondent who was enrolled in the Military service on 
29-09-1985 had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he 
is entitled to disability pension with effect from 31-03-1990. 
H 
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. 
According to him, during the course of his service, he has 
• 
A 
~ 
sustained 20% disability on account of electric shock suffered 
by him while he was on casual leave. On account of this he was 
declared medically unfit and ultimately discharged on 31-03-
1990. According to the present respondent he was entitled to 
B disability pension. 
3. Stand of the present appellants was that he suffered an 
t.. 
electric shock while he was on casual leave and working in his 
house near the tube well. It was pointed out that in any event 
c 
he had not completed 10 years of service and had been 
discharged after four years eleven months and two days of 
service. Therefore, there is no question of granting any disability 
pension. The Trial Court held that the respondent was entitled 
to disability pension. Same view was maintained in appeal by 
the District Judge, Bhiwani and the High Court. 
c 
D 
4. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Union 
of/ndia & Others Vs. Keshar Singh (2007 (12) SCC 675] and 
Union of India & Others Vs. Surinder Singh Rathore [2008 (5) 
SCC 747, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants 
E that the disability is not attributable to or aggravate by military 
service. In addition he had not completed the period of requisite 
service and L .erefore not entitled to disability pension. Learned 
4 
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court's view 
does not suffer from any infirmity. 
' 
F 
5. Keeping in view what this court has stated in the case 
of Keshar Singh and Surinder Singh (supra), the judgment of 
the_High Court is clearly unsustain

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.