IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.115 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.9.2009 Union of India & others. -----Appellants Vs. No.3995539 Ex.Sep. Vipin Kumar. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- None. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition for grant of disability pension. 2. The respondent was in Army and was granted 20 days casual leave on 25.9.1998. While on leave, he suffered an injury. He was admitted to hospital. He was invalidated out of Army service on account of 40% disability. His claim for disability pension was rejected on the ground that the injury suffered was not attributable to Army service which was a condition for disability pension. 3. Writ petition was filed, seeking quashing of order dated 12.1.2004 on the ground that since he did not suffer any LPA No.115 of 2009 disease at the time of entry into service, the disability suffered while in service should be treated to be attributable to Army service, even if at the time the injury was suffered, he was on leave. 4. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, upholding the contention of the respondent. 5. Though none appears today, on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants had brought to our notice that order of learned Single Judge was jointly passed in four writ petitions. Three LPAs against the said judgment of learned Single Judge have been allowed by a Division Bench of this Court being L.P.A. Nos.49, 61 and 66 of 2009 decided on 19.5.2009 Union of India v. Sumanjit Singh etc. etc. The Division Bench observed:- “Thus, as a corollary of the aforesaid judgments, we construe the words “disability attributable to or aggravated by the military service” as under :- 1. Disability which has been attracted by the army personnel on account of the disease which occurred during his service on account of the conditions and incidents of the service. 2. If the petitioner was on his way to and from his residence to place of duty, during his period of leave, the disease or disability so attracted by the army personnel would be covered by the disability attributable to or aggravated by the Military Service. 3. If the personnel had no disease at the time of entry into service and the same was not detected on medical examination prior to his entry into service, 2 LPA No.115 of 2009 however, it was detected at the time of boarding him out then the same would be deemed to have occurred during service. The disease must have direct and approximately close connection between the injury suffered and the discharge of his duties. 4. The disability or the injury suffered by the personnel, by way of self infliction, negligence or misconduct, during his period of leave, or he suffers such injury at the hands of some one, or has been for a different motive, remotely connected with the army services would not amount to an injury attributable to aggravated by the military service. 5. If the army personnel is caused any type of injury or suffers any disability on account of the fact that he has been considered as traitor, rebellion or a member of a rival group of the armed forces, then such disability could be covered and could be termed as disability attributable to and aggravated by the military services. 6. Disability suffered by any army personnel on duty as defined in Appendix II of the Army Regulations Rules, 1961. Thus, on examination of the cases before us, none of the cases is covered by the aforesaid principles and also by the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Surinder Singh Rathore's case (supra) (2008) 5 SCC 747) so also by the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in case Dilbagh Singh Ors. (Ex. Nk) vs. Union of India and Ors. 2008 (4) SCT 432.” 6. Notice was issued to the respondent. As per office report, the respondent is missing from his residence for the last 3 LPA No.115 of 2009 1½ years. The notice was sent at the same address which was given in the writ petition, which is his permanent residence. In the circumstances, the service is treated as complete. 7. The matter being clearly covered by earlier DB judgment of this Court referred to above, this appeal is disposed of in terms of DB judgment dated 19.5.2009 in L.P.A. Nos.49, 61 and 66 of 2009 Union of India v. Sumanjit Singh etc. etc.. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 02, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 4