SECRETARY, M/O DEFENCE & ORS.versusAJIT SINGH

                        [2009] 8 S.C.R. 934


A             SECRETARY, M/O DEFENCE & ORS.                          .   ;




                                 V.
                            AJIT SINGH
                   (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2003)
                           MAY 6, 2009
B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                        GANGULY, JJ.]                               ~-

        Service Law:
c
        Anned forces:

      Army - Disability pension - Armyman having put in 4
  years 11 months Milita1y service - While on casual leave he
  suffered injuries due to electric shock - Resulting in 20%
D disability - HELD: Would not be entitled to disability pension.   -c
       The respondent, an Armyman, after about 4 years
  and 11 months Military service suffered injuries due to
  electric shock while on casual leave. He was declared
E medically unfit and was accordingly discharged from
  service. He filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he
  was entitled to disability pension as according to him he
  sustained 20% disability. The trial court decreed the suit.
                                                                    ,.
  The first appellate court and the High Court affirmed the                  '
  decree.
F
       In the instant appeal filed by the Department it was
  contended for the appellant that since apart from the facts
  that the incident took place while the respondent was on
  casual leave and he had not completed 10 years of
G service, the disability was not attributable to the Military
  service, the courts below erred in decreeing the suit.            \.-

        Allowing the appeal, the Court
        HELD: Keeping in view the law laid down by this
H                           934
       SECRETARY, M/O DEFENCE & ORS. v. AJIT SINGH 935


      Court in Keshar Singh* and Surinder Singh the judgment              A
      of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set
      aside. [Para 5] [936-F]

          *Union of India & Ors. vs. Kehsar Singh 2007(12) SCC
      675 and Union of India & Ors. v. Surinder Singh Rathore
                                                                          8
      2008(5) sec 747, relied on.

                            Case Law Reference:

           2001(12) sec 675             relied on            Para 4

           2008(5) sec 747              relied on            Para 4       C
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.16
      of 2003.

          From the Judgment & Order dated 30.8.2001 of the High
->    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 4703 of          D
      1999.

          8. Datta, ASG, T.V. Ratnam, M. Chandrashekhar, 8.K.
      Prasad, B.V. Balaram Das for the Appellants.

          Manish Raghav Nitin Jain, Dr. Vipin Gupta for the               E
      Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered

           DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
      to the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the Punjab & F
      Haryana High Court. The appellants had filed an appeal before
      the High Court challenging the judgment dated 27-07-1999 of
      the District Judge, Bhiwani by which the appeal filed by the
      Union of India against the Judgment and decree passed by the
      learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Charkhi Dadri was G
- ~   dismissed.

           2. Respondent who was enrolled in the Military service on
      29-09-1985 had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he
      is entitled to disability pension with effect from 31-03-1990.      H
    936         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.


A According to him, during the course of his service, he has
                                                                              •
                                                                              ~
  sustained 20% disability on account of electric shock suffered
  by him while he was on casual leave. On account of this he was
  declared medically unfit and ultimately discharged on 31-03-
  1990. According to the present respondent he was entitled to
B disability pension.
         3. Stand of the present appellants was that he suffered an
    electric shock while he was on casual leave and working in his        t..
    house near the tube well. It was pointed out that in any event
    he had not completed 10 years of service and had been
c   discharged after four years eleven months and two days of
    service. Therefore, there is no question of granting any disability
    pension. The Trial Court held that the respondent was entitled
    to disability pension. Same view was maintained in appeal by
    the District Judge, Bhiwani and the High Court.
D                                                                         c
       4. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in Union
  of/ndia & Others Vs. Keshar Singh (2007 (12) SCC 675] and
  Union of India & Others Vs. Surinder Singh Rathore [2008 (5)
  SCC 747, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants
E that the disability is not attributable to or aggravate by military
  service. In addition he had not completed the period of requisite
  service and L .erefore not entitled to disability pension. Learned
                                                                          4
  Counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court's view
  does not suffer from any infirmity.                                         '

F        5. Keeping in view what this court has stated in the case
    of Keshar Singh and Surinder Singh (supra), the judgment of
    the_High Court is clearly unsustainable and in the circumstances,
    we set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court.

G        6. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case
    payment, if any, already been made to the respondent by way           ~-
    of disability pension shall not be recovered.
          7. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

H R.P.                                               Appeal allowed.