LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus JUJHAR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 8 S.C.R. 258 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JUJHAR SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 4281 of 2006) JULY 15, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.) Service Law: c Armed Forces - Army - Disability pension - Army personnel while on annual leave, suffered injuries in a road accident - Medical Board assessed his disability as 60% for two years - After superannuation with normal pension he claimed disability pension - HELD: The Medical Board 0 clearly opined that the injury was neither attributable to nor connected with service - The injury which had no connection with military service cannot be termed as attributable to or aggravated by military service - The claim was rightly rejected by the authorities - Pension Regulations of the Army E (Part-I), 1961 - Regulation 179 - Entitlement Rules, 1982 - Para 12(d) - Government of India Letter NO. 1(1)181/(PEN)C/ Vol. II dated 27. 10. 1998. · Armed Forces - Claim for disability pension - Opinion of Medical Board - HELD: In the instant case, medical F authorities have recorded a specific finding to the effect that disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service - The High Court has failed to appreciate that the Medical Board is a Specialized Authority composed of expert medical doctors and it is the final authority to give G information regarding attributability and aggravation of the disability to the military service and the condition of service resulting in the disablement of the individual. The respondent was enrolled in the Army on H 258 -- -- UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. JUJHAR SINGH 259 . 27.06.1978. On 26.03.1987, when he was at his native A· place on annual leave, he met with an accident and sustained severe injuries and was hospitalized. After he joined the duty, he was kept under observation by the Medical Board and his disability was assessed as 60% for two years. The Medical Board also opined that the B disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by the military service. The respondent was superannuated from service w.e.f. 01.07.1998 and he was granted normal service pension. He made a representation claiming disability pension on the ground that he was having c disability on the date of retirement. The representation was rejected. The respondent preferred a writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court holding that the respondent was entitled to disability pension under Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations 0 for the Army, 1961. The Letters Patent appeal filed by the employers was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved, the employers filed the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is not in dispute that the respondent was on annual leave when he met with a scooter accident as a pillion rider and sustained injuries on 26.03.1987 at his native place. He was not on military duty at the time E of the accident in terms of Para 12 (d) of Entitlement F Rules, 1982 as clarified by Government of India letter No.1(1)/81(PEN)CNol.ll dated 27.10.1998. In view of the same, the injuries sustained cannot be held to be attributable to the military servicl'I. [para 8] [265-E-F] 1.2. The opinion of the Medical Board makes it clear G that the injury is not attributable to service and it is not connected with service. The proceedings of the Court of Inquiry show that the injury of severe nature sustained by the respondent during his Annual Leave was not attributable to Military Service. Thus, the injury which had H 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. A no connection with the military service even though suffered during annual leave cannot be termed as attributable to or aggra.vated ·by military service. [paras 13,14 and-17] [270-A-B-G; 272-B-C] 8 Regional Director, E. S. /. Corporation and Another vs. Francis De Costa and Another, 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 797 = (1996) 6 sec 1 - relied on c Ex. N.K. Di/bag vs. Union of India and Others, 2008 (106) Delhi Reported Judgment 865 - approved Union of India and Another vs. Baljit Singh 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 626 =(1996) 11 SCC 315; and Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others vs. A. V. Damodaran (dead) through LRs. and Others, 2009 (13) SCR 416 = (2009) 9 0 sec 140 - referred to. 1.3. The Single Judge of the High Court failed to appreciate that under Regulation 179 of the Pension Regulations of the Army (Part-I), 1961, a personnel can be granted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.