UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus 3989606 P,EX-NAIK VIJAY KUMAR

Citation: [2015] 14 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 26-08-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 14 S.C.R. 295 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
3989606P, EX-NAIK VIJAY KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 6583 of 2015) 
AUGUST 26, 2015 . 
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 
1982- Rule 12 and Notes (1) and (2) - Disability pension -
Respondent was enrolled in Indian Army- He went on annual C 
leave - During leave period, he went to stay at the_ house of 
his sister- While staying there, he accidentally fell down and 
sustained multiple injuries -
Composite assessment for 
respondent's disability was assessed at 60% by the Medical 
Board-After due procedure, the respondent was invalidated D 
from service - Respondent was paid monetary benefits due 
and payable to him and also other pensionary benefits- His 
claim for disability pension was however rejected by the 
competent authority stating that respondent's disabilities were 
neither attributable to nor aggravated due to military service E 
- Respondent filed appeal which was rejected - Armed 
Forces Tribunal, however, allowed application filed by 
respondent holding that he was entitled to disability pension 
for 75% disability from the date of invalidation - Held: The · 
1982 Entitlement Rules are beneficial in nature and ought F 
to be liberally construed - But there has to be a reasonable 
causal connection between the injuries resulting in disability 
and the military service - On facts, the injury sustained by 
respondent was accidental in nature and nobody can be 
blamed for the same -Assessment by the Medical Board is G 
recommendatory in nature and is subject to acceptance by 
the Pension Sanctioning Authority, the opinion of the Medical 
Board by itself cannot confer right upon the respondent to 
claim disability pension. - After the accident when the 
295 
H 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 14S.C.R. 
A respondent was not actually performing military service, the 
opinion of the Medical Board "aggravated due to stress and 
strain of military service" does not appear to be in proper 
perspective - Clearly the injury suffered by the respondent 
has no causal connection with the military service -
The 
B tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident resulting in injury 
to the respondent was not even remotely connected to his 
military duty and H falls in the domain of an entirely private 
act - Order of the tribunal accordingly set aside - Pension 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Regulations for the Army 1961 - Regn. 173. 
Union of India and Anr. v. Ex Naik Surendra 
Pandey 2015 (2) SCALE 361 - distinguished. 
Union of India and Ors. v. Jujhar Singh (2011) 7 
SCC 735 : 2011 (8) SCR 258; Union of India nd 
Anr. v. TalwinderSingh (2012) 5 $CC 480: 2012 
(5) SCR 437 - relied on. 
Sukhwant Singh v. Union of India through the 
Secretary, Ministry of Defence nd Ors. (2012) 12 
SCC 228; Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. 
v. Ajit Singh (2009) 1 sec 328 : 2009 (8) 
SCR 934; Union of India & Ors. v. Keshar Singh 
(2007) 12 sec 675: 2001 (5) SCR 408; Union of 
India & Ors. v. Surinder Singh Rathore (2008) 5 
SCC 747: 2008 (4) SCR 909 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2012) 12 sec 228 referred to 
Para 11 
2009 (8) SCR 934 
referred to 
Para 13 
2007 (5) SCR 408 
referred to 
Para 13 
2008 (4) SCR 909 
referred to 
Para 13 
2011 (8) SCR 258 
relied on 
Para 14 
2012 (5) SCR 437 
relied on 
Para 15 
(2015) 2 SCALE 361 distinguished 
Para 17 
UNION OF INDIAv. 3989606 P, EX-NAIK VIJAY KUMAR 
297 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. A 
6583 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2011 in O.A. 
No. 248 of 2011/ Order dated 31.10.2012 in MA No. 795 and 
796 of 2012 in O.A. No. 248 of 2011 of the.Armed Force 
Tribunal Chandigarh Regional Bench, Chandimandir. 
B 
P.S. Patwalia, ASG, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Shankar · 
pivate, B.V. Balaram Das.,Advs. for the Appellants. 
Bhim Sen Sehgal, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Advs. for the 
Respondent. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Delay condoned. 
2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 13.07 .2011 
in. Original Application No.248 of 2011 and order dated D 
31.10.2012 in M.A.Nos.795 and 796 of 2012 passed by the 
Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (for short 
'the tribunal') whereby the tribunal allowed the application filed 
by the respondent observing that the respondent is entitled to 
get disabiljty pension for 75% disability from the date of his E 
invalidation. 
3. Brief facts which led to the filing.of this
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.