Summary
An Army member injured in a scooter accident while shopping during casual leave was granted disability pension by the Tribunal. The Court held that deemed duty during leave did not dispense with a causal connection between injury and military service. The Court of Inquiry endorsement was not conclusive for pension entitlement, and the private errand involved an ordinary civilian risk. The pension award was set aside.
Issues
- Whether deemed duty during leave sufficed for disability pension without a service nexus.
- Whether the Court of Inquiry or Brigade Commander’s attribution finding conclusively determined entitlement.
Provisions considered
- Paragraph 520, Defence Services Regulations, 1986The injury inquiry examined circumstances, duty status and blame; its endorsement did not conclusively settle medical attribution or pension entitlement. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- Rules 13 and 17, Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982The Court distinguished actual duty and service-connected injury from deemed duty, and recognised the Medical Board’s role in entitlement and assessment. (¶¶ 8, 17, 18, 22, 23)
Held
- Armed Forces personnel on casual or annual leave are treated as on duty, but injury must still have a relevant causal connection with service. Ordinary risks common to civilian life do not qualify unless enhanced by military conditions or incidents. A scooter trip to purchase household goods had no such nexus here. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 36)
- The Court of Inquiry and Medical Board serve different purposes. The Brigade Commander’s attribution endorsement was unsupported by material linking this private accident to service; it could not conclusively displace the applicable medical assessment and entitlement framework. (¶¶ 18, 19, 21, 22, 23)
- The test is a positive service nexus, not merely absence of an activity labelled unmilitary. Khushbash Singh and Barkat Masih were held not good law on the contrary approach. Cases concerning travel to or from duty involved a materially different service connection. (¶¶ 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
Result
The Government’s appeal was allowed. The Tribunal’s order granting disability pension was set aside and the respondent’s original application dismissed.