Bombay High Court Allows Disability Pension to Army Naik Injured in Service — Accident During Travel in Army Jeep Constitutes Attributable to Service. The Court held that the disability suffered by the petitioner while travelling in an Army jeep during service is attributable to military service, entitling him to disability pension under the Army Pension Regulations.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Bhima S/o Suryabhan Dhande, was a Naik in the Maratha Light Infantry who joined service on 11.11.1974. On 27.8.1984, while travelling in an Army jeep, he met with an accident and sustained a fracture to his left leg, for which he was hospitalized at Jamnagar. After treatment, he was placed in a lower medical category and eventually invalided out of service on 30.11.1989. The petitioner applied for disability pension, but the respondents rejected his claim vide communications dated 28.12.1990 and 28.10.1996, holding that the disability was not attributable to military service. The petitioner challenged these communications by way of a writ petition. The court considered the relevant Army pension regulations and the principle that pensionary benefits should be liberally construed. The court noted that the accident occurred while the petitioner was travelling in an Army jeep during the course of his employment, and the respondents failed to produce any evidence to show that the disability was not attributable to service. The court held that the disability was attributable to military service and directed the respondents to grant disability pension to the petitioner with effect from 1.12.1989, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition until realization.

Headnote

A) Army Law - Disability Pension - Attributable to Service - Army Pension Regulations - The petitioner, a Naik in the Maratha Light Infantry, sustained a fracture in his left leg while travelling in an Army jeep during service. The Court held that the disability was attributable to military service as the accident occurred during the course of employment, and the department failed to prove otherwise. The Court directed grant of disability pension with effect from 1.12.1989 with interest at 6% per annum. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the disability suffered by the petitioner in an accident while travelling in an Army jeep is attributable to military service, entitling him to disability pension under the relevant Army pension rules.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The communications dated 28.12.1990 and 28.10.1996 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant disability pension to the petitioner with effect from 1.12.1989 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

Law Points

  • Disability pension
  • Attributable to service
  • Army pension rules
  • Liberal construction of pensionary benefits
  • Burden of proof on department
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (06) 19

Writ Petition No.2092 of 1997

2010-06-29

B.R. Gavai, S.V. Gangapurwala

Mr. M.K. Deshpande for petitioner, Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondents

Bhima S/o Suryabhan Dhande

Union of India, Officer Incharge, Maratha Light Infantry Abhilekh Karyalaya, Balgaum, CCDA (p), Grants-3/RA Section Allahabad (U.P.)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging rejection of disability pension claim by army authorities.

Remedy Sought

Direction to respondents to grant disability pension with effect from 1.12.1989 with interest.

Filing Reason

Rejection of disability pension claim on ground that disability was not attributable to military service.

Previous Decisions

Communications dated 28.12.1990 and 28.10.1996 rejecting disability pension.

Issues

Whether the disability suffered by the petitioner is attributable to military service? Whether the petitioner is entitled to disability pension?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the accident occurred while he was travelling in an Army jeep during service, hence disability is attributable to service. Respondents argued that the disability was not attributable to military service and relied on the communications rejecting the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The disability suffered by the petitioner while travelling in an Army jeep during the course of his employment is attributable to military service. The department failed to prove that the disability was not attributable to service. Pensionary benefits should be liberally construed.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging communication dated 28.12.1990 and 28.10.1996 issued by the Respondent No.2, thereby holding that the petitioner is not entitled for disability pension. The accident occurred while the petitioner was travelling in an Army jeep. The disability is attributable to military service. The respondents have not produced any material to show that the disability is not attributable to military service.

Procedural History

The petitioner joined army on 11.11.1974. On 27.8.1984, he met with an accident while travelling in an Army jeep and sustained fracture. He was invalided out on 30.11.1989. He applied for disability pension, which was rejected on 28.12.1990 and 28.10.1996. He filed the present writ petition in 1997.

Acts & Sections

  • Army Pension Regulations:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal of Employee Seeking Reinstatement Beyond Age 60 — Employee Not Covered Under BIR Act as He Was Not an 'Employee' Under Section 3(13).
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Disability Pension to Army Naik Injured in Service — Accident During Travel in Army Jeep Constitutes Attributable to Service. The Court held that the disability suffered by the petitioner while travelling in an Army jeep du...