IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.9712-14-C of 2009 & RSA No.3177 of 2009 Decided on : 01.09.2009 Union of India & others ... Appellants versus Paramjit singh, Ex.Sepoy ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.9713-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 56 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.3177 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for declaration that he is entitled for disability pension w.e.f. 01.02.2003. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether an individual who suffered injury while going to his home is attributable to Army service when he was not discharging his official duty? RSA No.3177 of 2009 -2- ii)Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was premature since appeal filed by the plaintiff was pending decision before the competent authority as per Rules? iii)Whether the learned courts below can modify the finding of the Medical Board? Learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to deny that in the case of Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. Union of India and others reported as 1999(4) RSJ page 78 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “Applying the above rule, we are of the opinion that the rule makers did not intend to deprive the army personnel of the benefit of the disability pension solely on the ground that the cost of journey was not borne by the public exchequer. If the journey was authorised, it can make no difference whether the fare for the same came from the public exchequer or the army personnel himself. We, therefore, construe the words “at public expense” used in the relevant part of the rule to mean travel which is undertaken authorisedly. Even an army personnel entitled to casual leave may not be entitled to leave his station of posting without permission. Generally, when authorised to avail the leave for leaving the station of posting, an army personnel uses what is known as “travel warrant” which is issued at public expenses, same will not be issued if person concerned is travelling unauthorisedly. In this context, we are of the opinion, the words, namely “at public expense” are used rather loosely for the purpose of connoting the necessity of proceeding or returning from such journey authorisedly. Meaning RSA No.3177 of 2009 -3- thereby if such journey is undertaken even on casual leave but without authorisation to leave the place of posting, the person concerned will not be entitled to the benefit of the disability pension since his act of undertaking the journey would be unauthorised. Since on facts there is no allegation in this case that the appellant while travelling to his leave station on that fateful day was travelling unauthorisedly, we are of the opinion that he is entitled to the benefit of disability pension as provided under the Rules.” In this view of the matter, question No.(i) has to be decided against the appellant. With regard to question No.(ii) even though issue No.8 was framed in this regard, no argument was led by the learned counsel before the Courts below. With regard to question No.(iii) I find that the Medical Board has itself recommended him unfit due to head injury and due to that he was invalided out and discharged from service. Holding all these questions against the appellant, I dismiss this appeal. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any stand disposed of. September 01, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE