LPA No. 737 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 737 of 2010 Date of Decision 30.06.2010 Union of India and others -----Petitioners Versus Kashmir Singh ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. Kumar, J. This appeal filed by the Union of India under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment dated 30.04.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and order dated 17.02.2009 (Annexure P7) passed by the Principal Controller Defence Accounts (P) Allahabad refusing the claim of writ petitioner for grant of disability pension has been quashed. Consequently a direction has been issued to the respondents to release the disability pension as per Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1972 (for brevity 'the 1972 Rules'). There is no dispute on facts that the writ petitioner joined LPA No. 737 of 2010 -2- General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) on 3.12.1963 and was posted at Headquarters 32 BRTF (GREF) in Kashmir Valley in December, 1997. He met with an accident on 9.9.1998 while on duty during the days of Kargil operation in the insurgency area. He after taking his lunch, slipped and fell down on the fateful day and sustained fracture on his right leg which resulted in shortening of leg by 5 cms. The disability assessed was 40% at the time of his superannuation. The claim of the writ petitioner for grant of extraordinary pension as per the 1972 Rules was forwarded by the competent authority after holding Court of Inquiry which concluded that the injury sustained by the writ petitioner was in the course of bona fide Government service. The recommendation was duly accepted by the Commandant 32 BRTF (GREF) vide order dated 3.12.1998 (Annexure P4). The Chief Engineer being the competent authority for recommending the claim of disability pension under the 1972 Rules, also accepted the recommendation, which was forwarded by the Director General Border Roads to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (P) Allahabad. The Director General rejected the claim of the writ petitioner by passing the following order: “The case has been examined and it is observed that there is no casual connection between disablement and Govt. service, as the accident has occurred in the normal course of action and is not covered under ambit of G.O.I. decision No. 1 Category 'C' under Rule 13 CCS (EOP) Rules, LPA No. 737 of 2010 -3- reproduced at APPX-3 of CCS(P) Rules, 1972. For grant of disability pension under E.O.P. Rules, accidents must have occurred in the actual performance of the duties. In the instant case, the individual sustained injuries while walking down the steps in routine, therefore, this case will be covered under normal course of action and will not be entitled for disability pension. All the documents received are returned herewith.” The learned Single Judge by placing reliance on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Khushbash Singh 2010 (2) RSJ 369 has allowed the writ petition and noticed that the learned counsel for the Union of India was not able to contradict the argument raised on behalf of the writ petitioner that the matter was covered in his favour by Khushbash Singh's case (supra). The learned Single Judge relied upon para 18, which in turn stated that an Army personnel while on casual or annual leave has to be considered on duty. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was considered on duty who might have suffered injuries during the period of his duty but it would be deemed to be attributable to or aggravated by Militray Service. Therefore, decision of the Medical Board in examining the physiological injury or the psychological impacts of military service would obtain primacy and the Court was to be guided by scientific medical opinion. Challenging the view taken by the learned Single Judge, LPA No. 737 of 2010 -4- the only argument raised by Shri Ram Chander, learned counsel for the Union of India is that the judgment in Khushbash Singh's case (supra) is based on Army Regulations whereas the claim made by the writ petitioner is under the 1972 Rules. Having heard learned counsel for the Union of India, we are of the considered view that the Full Bench Judgment in Khushbash Singh's (supra) case has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge for a singular purpose of deciding the issue whether injury suffered on account of natural causes while person is not performing duty would be considered to have been suffered while on actual duty on account of deeming fiction of law. The essence of para 18 from the judgment of Khushbash Singh's case (supra), which has been quoted by the learned Single Judge, makes it amply clear. On principle and precedent, there is no room to conclude that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The appeal is wholly devoid of merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. As a sequel to the above discussions, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE June 30, 2010 Atul