CWP No.17000 of 1999 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 09.10.2009 Smt.Charanjit Kaur wife of Mohinder Singh ... Petitioner mother of Bhupinder Singh deceased Vs. Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Saurabh Garg, Advocate,for the petitioner. Ms.Geeta Singhwal, Advocate,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. Bhupinder Singh deceased, son of the petitioner, was recruited as Rifleman in the Armed Forces at Jorhat in the year 1987. He served the army upto 2.11.1994. On 07.09.1993, son of the petitioner applied for earned leave for the period from 05.09.1993 to 04.10.1993. While travelling in a train, he suffered injuries on 7.9.1993. He was taken to Western Command Hospital at Chandigarh. He was treated there from 8.2.1993 to 2.11.1994 in the said hospital at the military expenses. During treatment, he was produced before the Medical Board which declared him 100 per cent disabled and recommended to be invalidated from the army as was declared to be in Category EEE. During his life time, Bhupinder Singh deceased, made CWP No.17000 of 1999 : 2 : various representations to the department for grant of pension, leave encashment and other benefits which were payable to him, but the same were not released. He served legal notice dated 22.11.1996 on the respondents. Unfortunately, the son of petitioner expired on 19.08.1997 due to the injuries suffered by him. The present petitioner, being the mother of the deceased, is wholly dependent upon him, submitted an application to the respondents on 10.03.1998 for grant of the benefits payable to his deceased son. Subsequently, a reminder was sent on 14.10.1998 followed by another detailed representation dated 9.2.1999, but to no avail. It is under these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the service benefits of her deceased son, Bhupinder Singh. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in Gurjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.648 of 2007) on 20.2.2008, wherein the following directions/observations have been made:- “No doubt, when the petitioner met with an accident, he was on annual leave, but the accident was beyond control of the petitioner who was not performing any act he ought not to have done. In view of the settled law by the Apex Court, a person on casual/annual leave is CWP No.17000 of 1999 : 3 : deemed to be on duty and there must be apparent nexus between normal living of person subject to military law while on leave and injuries suffered by him. A person on annual leave is subject to Army Act and can be recalled at any time as leave is at discretion of authorities. This was so held by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Ex-Sepoy Hayat Mohammed's case (supra). In that case, the petitioner was on leave at his home town. While he was in his house, a huge steel beam and a cemented stone fell on the petitioner from the roof of the house, which was being repaired. This resulted in total paralysis of three fingers of his right hand and amputation of left hand. The petitioner was treated and was placed in permanent low medical category “EEE”. He was discharged from military service and rejected disability pension. His writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider and grant disability pension to the petitioner. With advantage, we may also refer to the authority reported as Madan Singh Shekhawat V. Union of India, 1999 (4) SCT, CWP No.17000 of 1999 : 4 : 89: AIR 1999 SC 3378 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an army personnel is deemed to be on duty when he is on any type of authorised leave during travelling to or from home or while on casual leave. In this case, as stated above, the petitioner had remained in his Unit for about one year after he was discharged from Military Hospital. However, his injury aggravated and he was discharged by the Release Medical Board. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to 20% disability pension, consisting of both the elements i.e. service and disability element. This pension, with all consequential benefits, will be paid to him from the date of his retirement. The respondents shall pay all the arrears to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum” In the present case, as noted above, the son of petitioner suffered injuries while travelling which were assessed at 100% while CWP No.17000 of 1999 : 5 : on leave. The accident was beyond his control. Due to the injuries sustained, which were later on aggravated, the son of the petitioner died. The above observations/directions are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner is entitled to service benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, disability pension etc. of her deceased son Bhupinder Singh. However, arrears are restricted to three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. 09.10.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE