The Supreme Court ruled that the Military personnel will only be entitled to disability pension if the disability is attributable to military service and is more than 20 percent.
A Bench of Justices AS Oka and MM Sundresh said that the army personnel who are on leave to be entitled for disability pension,must have been sustained while travelling to the leave station and not after reaching it.
The court said that “Unless the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service and is more than 20%, the entitlement to disability pension does not arise.
The Court has rejected the Indian Army personnel’s claim who had sustained injuries two days after he reached the leave station as this was no way connected to military service.
The Central government had challenge a 2010 order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench) which called for release of disability pension for life to the respondent from the date of his discharge from military service, with arrears due of three years after which the judgment was rendered.
The respondent was an army personnel who was on leave when he met an accident in year 1999 while he was crossing the road.
As per the rule,the medical board assessed the percentage of the disability of the respondent which were peaked at 80 percent and consequently, he was invalidated out of service from September 28, 2000.
The respondent made an application to the Armed Forces Tribunal praying for grant of disability pension.
The plea holding that if an individual sustains an injury during the period of any kind of authorized leave and his act was not inconsistent with military service, his disability is deemed to be attributable to military service was put forward by the AFT.
This was challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Central government was represented by the Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, who submitted that there has to be a reasonable connection between the injuries sustained by a member of armed forces resulting in disability and the military service.
For putting his point forward he cited Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 and Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982.
The respondent however did not appear before the Court despite notice being issued to him.
As per the Court observations that the injury was not sustained during military service.
“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,” the judgment noted.
The court therefore held that the respondent is not entitled to the disability pension.