ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant was serving as Lance Dafadar in regular Army. He served for more than 17 years as a combatant soldier and had served in the operational area during the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars. On 14-2-1976 he was proceeding on casual leave from Babina, his duty station to his home in district Faridkot (Punjab). While boarding the train at Babina Railway Station he got involved in an unfortunate accident as a result of which he fell down from the train and suffered severe injuries. His right leg came under the wheels of moving train and as such he was crushed below the knee. The leg was amputated at the military hospital, Jhansi on 17-2-1976. He was discharged from Army in December 1976 and he is being paid the pension due to him. 3. A court of inquiry was held which came to the conclusion that the journey was being performed on a concession voucher and the appellant being on casual leave was deemed to be on duty. The Commanding Officer, Lt. Col. K.K. Deva agreed with the findings of the inquiry and found that the injury was sustained by the appellant while he was on casual leave which under the Rules is treated as on duty. 4. Although the appellant was given Army pension but he was denied disability pension under the Pension Regulations. The disability pension was denied to the appellant on the ground that the injury was not attributable to military service. The appellant challenged the denial of disability pension by way of a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine on the ground of delay. 5. The question for our consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the disability pension. We agree with the contention of Mr B. Kanta Rao, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being in regular Army there is no reason why he should not be treated as on duty when he was on casual leave. No Army Regulation or Rule has been brought to our notice to show that the appellant is not entitled to disability pension. It is rather not disputed that an army personnel on casual leave is treated to be on duty. We see no justification whatsoever in denying the disability pension to the appellant. 6. No Army Regulation or Rule has been brought to our notice to show that the appellant is not entitled to disability pension. It is rather not disputed that an army personnel on casual leave is treated to be on duty. We see no justification whatsoever in denying the disability pension to the appellant. 6. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court dated 15-12-1992. The disability of the appellant has already been adjudged by the respondents as 60%. We direct the respondents to grant disability pension to the appellant from the date when he was discharged from the Army treating him to have incurred 60% disability. The respondents shall finalise the disability pension case of the appellant within three months from the receipt of this order. The appellant shall be further paid all the arrears of the pension within a further period of three months thereafter. In case the arrears of disability pension are not paid to the appellant within the period of six months from the receipt of this order, then the appellant shall be entitled to 12% interest from that date on the amount due. 7. The appeal is allowed. No costs. For Citation: 1995 Supp(3) SCC 232