Supreme Court clarifies the causal connection requirement for disability pension in Armed Forces: The Secretary, Government of India vs. Dharambir Singh (20 September 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2019

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 4981 of 2012

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can an injury sustained by an army personnel while on leave be considered attributable to military service, thus entitling them to a disability pension? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the requirements for granting disability pensions to armed forces personnel. This judgment emphasizes that while personnel on leave are considered “on duty,” a causal link between the injury and military service is essential for a disability pension claim to succeed.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, delivered the judgment. Justice Hemant Gupta authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

Dharambir Singh, the respondent, joined the Territorial Army on December 28, 1981, and was discharged on December 13, 1999. While on two days of casual leave from January 25, 1999, to January 26, 1999, he met with a scooter accident. This resulted in a head injury, faciomaxillary, and a compound fracture of his left femur.

A Court of Inquiry (COI) was conducted to investigate the circumstances of the accident. The Brigade Commander’s report, dated August 18, 1999, stated that the injuries occurred in a peace area but were attributable to military service. However, the report also noted that the respondent lost control of his scooter and that no one else was to blame.

The Medical Board assessed his disability at 30% but rejected his claim for a disability pension, stating that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. The Additional Directorate General, Personnel Services, also rejected his appeal. Subsequently, the respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India & Ors. and ruled that the respondent was entitled to a disability pension. The Tribunal’s decision was based on the premise that the injury was attributable to military service.

The Union of India appealed the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that while the respondent was on duty during his casual leave, the injury had no causal connection to his military service. They cited recent judgments of the Supreme Court, including Renu Devi v. Union of India & Ors. and Union of India & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar No.3989606 P , Ex-Naik, which emphasized the need for a causal connection between the injury and military service for a disability pension to be granted.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined several key legal provisions to determine the case. These include:

• Section 3(i) of the Army Act, 1950: Defines “active service” as time spent engaged in operations against an enemy or in military occupation of a foreign country.
  
  “active service”, as applied to a person subject to this Act, means the time during which such person – (a) is attached to, or forms part of, a force which is engaged in operations against an enemy, or (b) is engaged in military operations in, or is on the line of march to, a country or place wholly or partly occupied by an enemy, or (c) is attached to or forms part of a force which is in military occupation of a foreign country.”
• Section 9 of the Army Act, 1950: Empowers the Central Government to declare any person subject to the Act to be on active service.
  
  “Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i) of section 3, the central Government may, by notification, declare that any person or class of persons subject to this Act shall, with reference to any area in which they may be serving or with reference to any provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to be on active service within the meaning of this Act.”
• Notification dated 29.11.1962: Declares that all persons subject to the Army Act are deemed to be on active service, regardless of where they are serving.
  
  “In exercise of the powers conferred by section 9 of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Central Government hereby declares that all persons subject to that Act, who are not on active service under clause (I) of section 3 thereof, shall, wherever they may be serving, be deemed to be on active service within the meaning of that Act for the purposes of the said Act and of any other law for the time being in force.”
• Rule 10 of the Leave Rules for the Services, Volume-I (Army): States that casual leave counts as duty.
  
  “Casual leave counts as duty except as provided for in Rule 11 (a).”
• Regulation 53(a) of the Disability Element for Disability at the time of Discharge/Retirement (2008): Specifies that individuals suffering from a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service may be granted a disability element in addition to their service pension.
  
  “An individual released/retired /discharged on completion of term of engagement or on completion of service limits or on attaining the prescribed age (irrespective of his period of engagement), if found suffering from a disability attributable to or aggravated by military service and so recorded by Release Medical Board, may be granted disability element in addition to service pension or service gratuity from the date of retirement/discharge, if the accepted degree of disability is assessed at 20 percent or more.”
• Regulation 82 of the Disability Element for Disability at the time of Discharge/Retirement (2008): Categorizes the circumstances under which death or disability can occur, including categories for natural causes, causes attributable to military service, accidents during duty, acts of violence, and enemy action.
• Rules 12, 13, 17 and 19 of the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982: Define “duty” and the conditions for injuries to be considered attributable to military service.
  
  “12. A person subject to the disciplinary code of the Armed Forces is on “duty”:-
  (a)When performing an official task or a task, failure to do which would constitute an offence triable under the disciplinary code applicable to him.
  (b)When moving from one place of duty to another place of duty irrespective of the mode of movement.
  (c)During the period of participation in recreation and other unit activities organized or permitted by Service Authorities and during the period of travelling in a body or single by a prescribed or organized route.
  NOTE: 1
  (a)xxx xxx
  (b)xxx xxx
  (c)xxx xxx
  NOTE: 2
  xxx xxx
  (d)When proceeding from his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station, provided entitled to travel at public expenses i.e. on railway warrants, on concessional voucher, on cash TA (irrespective of whether railway warrant/cash TA is admitted for the whole journey or for a portion only), in government transport or when road mileage is paid/payable for the journey.
  (e)XXX XXX
  (f)An accident which occurs when a man is not strictly on duty as defined may also be attributable to service, provided that it involved risk which was definitely enhanced in kind or degree by the nature, conditions, obligations or incidents of his service and that the same was not a risk common to human existence in modern conditions in India. Thus, for instance, where a person is killed or injured by another party by reason of belonging to the Armed Forces, he shall be deemed ‘on duty’ at the relevant time. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimant in cases occurring on active service as defined in the Army/Navy/Air Force Act.”
  
  
  “13. In respect of accidents or injuries, the following rules shall be observed:-
  (a)Injuries sustained when the man is “on duty” as defined, shall be deemed to have resulted from military service, but in cases of injuries due to serious negligence/misconduct the question of reducing the disability pension will be considered.
  (b)In cases of self-inflicted injuries whilst on duty, attributability shall not be conceded unless it is established that service factors were responsible for such action; in cases where attributability is conceded, the question of grant of disability pension at full or at reduced rate will be considered.”
  
  
  “17. Medical Opinion: At initial claim stage, medical views on entitlement and assessment are given by the IMB/RMB. Normally, these views shall prevail for decisions in accepting or rejecting the claim. In cases of doubt the Ministry/CCDA (Pensions) may refer such cases for second medical opinion to MA (Pensions) Sections in the office of the DGAFMS/Office of CCDA(P), Allahabad, respectively. At appeal stage, appropriate appellate medical authorities can review and revise the opinion of the medical boards on entitlement and assessment.”
  
  
  “19. Aggravation: if it is established that the disability was not caused by service, attributability shall not be conceded. However, aggravation by service is to be accepted unless any worsening in his condition was not due to his service or worsening did not persist on the date of discharge/claim.”
  
• Regulation 423 of the Medical Regulations: Explains the attributability of injuries to service, emphasizing the need for a causal connection.
  
  “Regulation 423. Attributability of Service
  a)For the purpose of determining whether the cause of a disability or death is or is not attributable to service, it is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability or death occurred in an area declared to be a field service/active service area or under normal peace conditions. It is, however, essential to establish whether the disability or death bore a causal connection with the service conditions…
  b)The cause of a disability or death resulting from wound or injury, will be regarded as attributable to service if the wound/injury was sustained during the actual performance of ‘duty’ in armed forces. In case of injuries which were self-inflicted or due to an individual’s own serious negligence or misconduct, the Board will also comment how far the disability resulted from self-inflection, negligence or misconduct.
  xxxxxxxxx
  d)The question, whether a disability or death is attributable to or aggravated by service or not, will be decided as regards its medical aspects by a Medical Board or by the medical officer who signs the death certificate. The Medical Board/medical officer will specify reasons for their/his opinion. The opinion of the Medical Board/medical officer, insofar as it relates to the actual cause of the disability or death and the circumstances in which it originated will be regarded as final. The question whether the cause and the attendant circumstances can be attributed to service will, however, be decided by the pension sanctioning authority.
  e)To assist the medical officer who signs the death certificate or the Medical Board in the case of an invalid, the CO unit will furnish a report on:
  (i)AFMS F-81 in all cases other than those due to
  injuries.
  (ii)IAFY 2006 in all cases of injuries other than
  battle injuries.
  f)In cases where award of disability pension or reassessment of disabilities is concerned, a Medical Board is always necessary and the certificate of a single medical officer will not be accepted except in case of stations where it is not possible or feasible to assemble a regular Medical Board for such purposes. The certificate of a single medical office in the latter case will be furnished on a Medical Board form and countersigned by the ADMS (Army)/ DMS (Navy)/DMS(Air).”
  

These provisions collectively establish that while armed forces personnel on leave are considered on duty, a causal connection between the injury and military service is necessary for a disability pension to be granted.

Arguments

The appellants (Government of India) argued that while the respondent was on duty during his casual leave, the injury he sustained had no causal connection with his military service. They contended that the respondent’s scooter accident, which occurred while he was purchasing electrical goods for his sister, was a private act and not related to his military duties. The appellants relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Renu Devi v. Union of India & Ors. and Union of India & Ors. v. Vijay Kumar No.3989606 P , Ex-Naik, which emphasized the need for a causal connection between the injury and military service for a disability pension to be granted.

The respondent argued that disability pension claims fall under two categories: ‘injury’ and ‘disease’. He contended that in injury cases, the findings of the Court of Inquiry (COI) are final, unlike in disease cases where the Medical Board’s opinion is final. The respondent referred to Para 520 of the Defence Services Regulations, 1986, and judgments from the Tribunal and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, including Union of India & Ors. v. Khushbash Singh and Barkat Masih v. Union of India & Ors., to support his claim that any injury not from an “unmilitary activity” should be considered attributable to military service.

The respondent argued that any activity that is not an “unmilitary activity” should be deemed as an injury attributable to military service. The respondent claimed that since he was on duty and the activity was not an “unmilitary activity” the injury should be attributable to military service.

The respondent also relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Vardip Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., where the court granted disability pension to the family of a deceased Major who saved lives in a fire incident.

The respondent contended that the COI report stating that the injury was attributable to military service should be considered final and that the Medical Board opinion should not be given primacy in injury cases.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether armed forces personnel on casual or annual leave are to be treated as on duty?
2. Whether an injury or death, even if the armed forces personnel is on duty, must have a causal connection with military service to be considered attributable to or aggravated by military service?
3. What is the effect and purpose of a Court of Inquiry (COI) into an injury suffered by armed forces personnel?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that while armed forces personnel on leave are considered “on duty,” the injury or death must have a causal connection with military service to be considered attributable to or aggravated by military service. The Court emphasized that the opinion of the Court of Inquiry (COI) is not final for determining disability pension; the Medical Board’s opinion on the causal connection and extent of disability is final.

The Court observed that the respondent’s scooter accident occurred while he was on casual leave and was not linked to his military duties. The respondent was purchasing electrical goods for his sister, which was a private act. The Court held that the injury was not attributable to his military service.

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, and held that the respondent was not entitled to a disability pension.

Flowchart: Decision-Making for Disability Pension

Key Takeaways

• Armed forces personnel on casual or annual leave are considered on duty.
• A causal connection between the injury/death and military service is essential for a disability pension.
• The opinion of the Court of Inquiry (COI) is not final for determining disability pension.
• The Medical Board’s opinion on the causal connection and extent of disability is final.
• Personal activities during leave, not related to military service, do not qualify for disability pension.

Implications

This judgment clarifies the rules for disability pension claims in the Armed Forces. It emphasizes that while personnel on leave are considered on duty, a causal link between the injury and military service is essential. This decision could lead to more scrutiny of disability pension claims, especially those involving accidents during leave. The judgment also reinforces the importance of the Medical Board’s opinion in determining the causal connection and extent of disability.