Rachhpal Singh vs Union of India & Ors.

The Officer Commanding of the Unit made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner. This was to the effect that he is entitled to disability

pension. The Controller of Defense Accounts at Allahabad, however, formed an opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the disability pension.

An opinion stand expressed that the disability, which resulted in the invalidment of the petitioner, was not attributable to military service. The

petitioner represented against this. Finally, in May 1997, the petitioner was informed that the disability ('EEE' due to NECROSIS HYSTERICAL

REACTION 300V67"" is not attributable to army service. It was also indicated that this malady was not aggravated by Military service. On

receiving this communication, the petitioner approached this court.

The writ petition stands admitted. A counsel appeared for the Union of India. Six weeks time was sought for filling of counter. Counter has not

been filed.

The petitioner submits that in the month of November/December 1980, the Unit of the petitioner was deputed to carry on routine army

exercises at Pokhran in the State of Rajasthan After completing the exercises men of the Unit were returning. They were traveling in a train. At that

point of time the train's door hit him in the head. This is how he received a head injury. The wound was stitched. Six stitches were administered.

Notwithstanding the above treatment the petitioner would develop high temperature. This was accompanied by pain in cerebral region of the

petitioner. The petitioner was examined at the Military hospital He was placed in category described as CAT (B). The malady from which the

petitioner was suffering was indicated as permanent disable as category 'EEE' due to NEROSTS (HYSTERICAL REACTION) 300V67"". He

was invalidated out of service. As indicated above, even though the Commanding Officer of the petitioner made a recommendation in favour of the

petitioner, yet the Controller of Defense Accounts has formed a view to the contrary. 4 The question arises as to whether the petitioner suffered an

injury while he was on duty.

In Balwanti Devi V. State SWP No: 1327/1993 decided on 16. 11. 1998, the concerned employee had gone to a Cinema Hall for seeing a

movie. While returning he met with an accident. As a result of this accident he died. His legal heirs made a claim for family pension. Placing reliance

on Entitlement Rules for 'family pension of 1982, it was observed that the heirs of the deceased were entitled to pension. Paragraph of the

Entitlement Rules for Casualty Awards 1982 is being noticed in this regard. This read as under:

A person subject to the disciplinary code of the Armed Forces is on duty:

(a) When performing an official task or a task failure to do which would constitute an offence triable under the disciplinary code applicable to him.

(b) When moving from one place of duty to another place of duty irrespective Of the made of movement

(c) During the period of participation in recreation and other unit activities organized or permitted by Service Authorities and during the period of

traveling in a body or singly by a prescribed or organized route.

A perusal of paragraph 12does indicate that when a member of the Armed force is moving from one place of duty to another, then he is to be

treated as on duty. The petitioner was returning after completing of Army exercise at Pokhran. He was traveling by train. He would be deemed to

be on duty. In similar circumstances, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Shasti Kumar Mishra V. Union of India and ors 1993 (3)

SCT 411 allowed pension when the Army officer who was on casual leave met with an accident. The Madhya Pradesh High Court came to the

conclusion that notwithstanding the fact that the concerned Officer was on casual leave, he would be deemed to have suffered on injury while on

duty.

In view of the above, the petitioner is held entitled to pension. His disability was assessed as 20%. On the basis of this, he would be entitled to

pension. Let pensioner benefits be released in favour of the petitioner within periods of three months. The petitioner would also be entitled to

interest. The rate of interest would be 12% pa In case the needful is not done by the respondents within the above stipulated period, the rate of

interest would be 15% p. a and the enhanced amount of interest would be payable by the person on whose account the delay occurs. A copy of

this order along with a copy of the writ petition and the annexure there of be made available by the petitioner to the respondents. The period of

three months would begin from the date a copy of this order is made available to the respondents.

Disposed of accordingly.