JUDGMENT 1. - As per the undisputed facts the husband of the petitioner Maru Ram 1 ha I joined the India Army (the Jat Regiment) on July 18, 1969. He took part in the lndo-Pak war in the year 1971 and earned award 1971 Star. While the petitioner was availing two months leave from February, 1972 to March, 1972, during casual leave, he sustained crush injury on his right hand and the 5 fingers of right hand were cut-off. Due to the injury the petitioner was invalided out of service on medical ground with effect from March 5. 1973. The injury was not considered as attributable to military service, therefore the case of petitioner for disability pension was not considered and no disability pension has been granted. Hence this petition. 2. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the petition as well as reply filed by the respondents. 3. Rule 10 of the Defence Service Regulations (for short 'the Regulations') provides that casual leave counts as duty except as provided for in Rule 11(a)." It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner comes under any of such exceptions. 4. As per Rule 48 of the regulations, which contemplates admissibility of disability pension, a person incurring disability when proceeding to his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station at public expense is also entitled to the grant of disability pension. 5. While examining Regulation 48. their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Singh Shekhawat v. U.O.I., 1994 (4) SCT 89 indicated that -it is the duty of the Court to interpret a provision, especially a beneficial provision, liberally so as to give it a wider meaning rather then a restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the Rule." 6. Undeniably the petitioner had been granted casual leave for two to months after participation of the petitioner in the Indo-Pak war. The Division Berth of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Union of India v. Gurnam Singh, 1998 (2) RSJ 478 held that presumption under the Regulations is favourable to the claimants. Undeniably the petitioner had been granted casual leave for two to months after participation of the petitioner in the Indo-Pak war. The Division Berth of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Union of India v. Gurnam Singh, 1998 (2) RSJ 478 held that presumption under the Regulations is favourable to the claimants. In Shri Krishan Dahiya v. Union of India, 1996 (4) SCT 426 (P&H) (DB) it was observed that "while a person on casual leave suffered disability can not be denied the - pensionary benefits." Similar view was expressed in Manjit Singh v. Government of India, 2000 (2) SCT 52 . 7. During pendency of the writ petition the petitioner Maru Ram expired on March 27. 2002 and his widow Smt. Gogri Devi has been taken on record. Since Maru Ram was entitled to disability pension his widow is entitled to family pension according to Riles. 8. I therefore allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to grant Maru Ram (deceased) disability pension in accordance with rules from March 5, 1973 to March. 2002 and pay the same to widow of petitioner After March, 2002 the family pension Le paid to widow of the petitioner Maru Ram in accordance with rules. The respondents shall ensure compliance of this order within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed - Widow of Deceased Pensioner IC be Given Pension. *******