The High Court dismissed an appeal seeking disability pension for an army personnel injured by a thief during casual leave. The court distinguished the Supreme Court's Joginder Singh case, holding the injury was not attributable to service despite the technical status of casual leave as duty.
No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
R.S.A. No.1899 of 2007 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No.1899 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision:02.07.2009.
Harbans Singh Chahal
...Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present: Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
AJAY TEWARI, J.
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant claiming a declaration that he is entitled to disability pension. Admitted facts are that the appellant came home on leave and at night, while he was asleep, a thief entered his house and on being challenged, shot the appellant in the eye. The appellant was, thereafter, discharged on medical ground vide order dated 14.07.1972. Both the Courts below have held that even though the appellant was in service, yet injury which he suffered could not have even a remote nexus to his service. The appeal proposes the following questions of law: -
i) Whether, the finding of the learned Courts below that though the period of the casual leave is to be treated as period of active service but the
R.S.A. No.1899 of 2007 (O&M)
-2-
gun-shot injury received by the plaintiff/appellant for his no fault while he was on casual leave is not attributable to the Army service, is legally sustainable?
ii) Whether the learned First Appellate Court for the first time could hold the suit of the plaintiff/appellant regarding disability pension barred by limitation when there is no such issue nor any such issue was claimed by the defendant/respondent during the trial and further
no such evidence was led nor any such argument was raised?
iii) Whether the right to pension, which is recurring in nature, can be defeated on the ground of limitation?
In my opinion, the determination of question Nos.2 and 3 would be necessitated only if question No.1 is decided in favour of the appellant. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joginder Singh (Lance Dafadar) Vs. Union of India and others, reported as 1997(2) RSJ page 413, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed disability pension to a person who had met with an accident while boarding a train on way to enjoy his leave. In my opinion, the case of the appellant cannot be considered at par with that of Joginder Singh's case (supra), where the person was proceeding by train on a concession voucher and suffered an accident while going to avail his leave. In the present
-3-
R.S.A. No.1899 of 2007 (O&M)
case, as mentioned above, the appellant was shot by a thief while he was availing his leave. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a particular sentence, which is as follows: -
“It is rather not disputed that an Army personnel on casual leave is treated to be on duty.”
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in view of this exposition of law, it has to be held that the appellant was on duty and, thus, he suffered the disability during the same. In my opinion, this sentence has to be read in the context and cannot be given the broad interpretation which is sought to be given by the learned counsel for the appellant. The position of the appellant of having been shot at by a thief can in no circumstance to be held attributable to Army service so as to grant the appellant the benefit of being on duty and, therefore, the question whether the appellant is to be considered on duty or not pales into insignificance.
Consequently, deciding question No.1 against the appellant this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
July 02, 2009 vinod
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a gun-shot injury received by an army personnel on casual leave while being shot by a thief is attributable to Army service to grant disability pension?
Whether a suit for disability pension can be barred by limitation given the recurring nature of pension rights and lack of limitation plea by the respondent?
Whether the statement that army personnel on casual leave are treated to be on duty permits broad interpretation to include injuries from crimes unrelated to service?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Joginder Singh (Lance Dafadar) Vs. Union of India and othersDistinguished¶23
1997(2) RSJ page 413
Harbans Singh Chahal
Union of India
AJAY TEWARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
