EX Vs. GOVT. OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A person, subject to Army Act, if suffers an injury, when on casual leave, which ultimately resulted in his invalidation from the army service, on medical ground, would be entitled to receive the benefits of disability pension or not, is the precise question that falls for determination in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner, Ex-Naik Manjit Singh, was enrolled in Bengal Engineering Group in Draftsman Trade on 3rd May, 1963. The petitioner continued to serve and was posted at Headquarter 7th Infantry Division at Ferozepur Cantt as Naik in the year 1973. The petitioner had proceeded on pre-sanctioned 10 days casual leave to attend his younger brother's marriage at his native place. The petitioner left his Headquarter on 27th Nov., 1973. However, while returning from the place of marriage in a jeep, to his native place, the jeep in which he was travelling met with the accident with a Truck on 3rd Dec., 1973. The petitioner was seriously injured and after some treatment was evacuated at military hospital at Ferozepur, the petitioner was treated at various medical hospitals and the Medical Board had placed him under Low Medical Category 'EEE' with 100% disablement for army service. On 20th Oct., 1976, the petitioner was boarded out of military service with 100% disability. His case for disability pension was processed by his Unit, but the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the CCDA (P) Allahabad. On 26th Sept., 1977, the petitioner filed an appeal under the rules against the rejection of his request for disability pension but the same was also rejected, vide order dated 26th Dec., 1981, Annexure P/6. Thereafter the petitioner appears to have served a legal notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure after a considerable lapse and the case was also taken up by the President of the Indian Ex-Service League, Union Territory, Chandigarh with the Central Government but the same was not accepted by the government. The representation was also rejected, though the notice served through the counsel remained unreplied, compelling the petitioner to file the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Upon notice, the respondents filed a detailed reply. Preliminary objections were taken with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Court as well as that the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. On merits, it was stated that the petitioner has not stated the correct facts in the writ petition. The petitioner had not taken 7 days casual leave but had taken 10 days casual leave from 27th Nov., 1973 to 6th Dec., 1973. It is conceded that while on leave, he met with the accident on 3rd Dec., 1973. His admission to the military hospital, at Ferozepur on 5th Dec., 1973 as well as treatment in other military hospitals is also not disputed. The case pleaded by the respondent for rejection of the claim of the petitioner in the present case as is under:-