Judgment Heard Sri S.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India / respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs is Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order passed by the respondent no. 3 C.DA (P)Allahabad U.P. rejecting by information order or disability pension dated 31-08-1992 issued by the Garhwal Rifles, Records Lansdowne Garhwal (U.P.) on behalf of respondent nO.3 (annexure no.5) of this writ petition, ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order passed by the respondent no. 1 Union of India, rejection by information " order dated 31-12-1993 issued by the O.P. Srivastava, Additional Secretary Govt. of India, New Delhi (annexure no.7) to this writ petition, iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1,2,3 & 4 to provide forthwith disability pension and gratuity to the petitioner w.e.f. 29-02-1992 from the date of discharge, for life alongwith family pension (annexure no.9) to this writ petition, iv) Issue a writ, order or direction which in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner in civil employment for which the petitioner was found fit for civil jobs under the Military Department (annexure no.9) to the writ petition, v) Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner, vi) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner, as narrated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was enlisted in Garhwal Rifles Lansdowne on 23-09-1983. While the petitioner was posted in Sri Lanka in the month of March/April 1989, he applied for leave and was granted two months leave by the respondents. During the leave period the petitioner, while living in his newly built house in village Motadhak, fell down and his left hand was fractured. The petitioner was admitted to Army Hospital, Roorkee and the hand of the petitioner was plastered, but because of negligence of the doctors of the Army Hospital, the bone of the hand of the petitioner was joined wrongly. The petitioner was admitted to Army Hospital, Roorkee and the hand of the petitioner was plastered, but because of negligence of the doctors of the Army Hospital, the bone of the hand of the petitioner was joined wrongly. The Garhwal Rifles, Lansdowne, thereafter asked the petitioner to perform duty of Mule catering and while he was performing his duties, he fell down again with the result that there was fracture again. The petitioner was referred to Army Hospital, Dehradun for operation where his hand was operated upon and two iron rods were fixed in his left hand. After the aforesaid incident, the petitioner had worked with the Garhwal Rifles for more than 11/2 year, however he was discharged from service on 29-02-1992 without disability pension. The disability was assessed to 20% by the respondents. Since, the petitioner was not granted disability pension, he constrained to file the present writ petition. 4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit. In paras-7 & 8 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken the following grounds :- "That the para no. 4 of the writ petition is partly admitted. The petitioner was accorded 64 days annual leave w.e.f. 24 March, 1989 to 26 May, 1989. It is admitted that the petitioner was admitted to the Military Hospital Roorkee on 2nd May 1989 and was discharge on 8th May, 1980. The nature of injury was Fracture Radius and Ulna (L T). Injury report was initiated by the Military Hospital Roorkee dated 03 May, 1989 wherein it was declared that the injury of the petitioner was not attributed to military service. A court of inquiry was held and the petitioner was placed in low medical category CEE (Temporary) we.f. 24 June, 1989 for six months and a medical board was held at military hospital on 24th June, 1989. The petitioner was again admitted to military hospital Lansdowne on 3 July 1989 and subsequently transferred to Military Hospital Dehradun on 5th July 1989. The petitioner was accorded 42 days sick leave we.f. 30 August 1989 to 10 October 1989 by Military Hospital, Dehradun with the direction to report back on expiry of leave. The petitioner reported at military hospital on 10th October 1989. His initial medical category was reviewed after six months w. e. f. 24th December 1989 and further he was placed in low medical category (Temporary) for another six months. The petitioner reported at military hospital on 10th October 1989. His initial medical category was reviewed after six months w. e. f. 24th December 1989 and further he was placed in low medical category (Temporary) for another six months. The petitioner stated that he was detailed for careering of Mules, which is incorrect. The petitioner after the hospitalization period he was given normal military duties as authorized to low medical category personnel and not for catering Mules, as no such record is available. Hence the statement of the petitioner is incorrect. 'That the para no. 5 of the writ petition is admitted to the extent that the petitioner joined the hospital and transferred to Military Hospital, Lansdowne for completion of hospitalization documents. The petitioner was again brought before medical board for re-categorization and subsequently placed in low medical category. The petitioner was asked for retention of service due to the reason that he was placed in low medical category and the petitioner in the instant case submitted his willingness to serve. The competent authority did not recommended to the petitioner for retention in service because no sheltered appointment was available keeping in view of his disability as per Army Order 46/80 and due to this reason the petitioner was discharge from service w.e.f. 29 February 1992 (AN) in terms of Army Rule 13 (3) (III) (V). It is pertinent to mention here that a show cause notice was also served to the petitioner and the same was also disposed of in terms of Army Order 46/80 by stating that the petitioner in the instant petition is not in a position to render his essential duties as infantry solder. The petitioner was also asked for to urged against contemplated release from service within 7 days from the date of issue of show cause notice but the petitioner in the instant petition fails to reply to the show cause notice. There being no suitable sheltered appointed available, he was not recommended for retention his service by the competent authority and accordingly he was discharged. The petitioner was again brought before Release Medical Board as per Army order 3189 and a Medical Board was held on 10th January 1992 and it was found that there is 20% disability. There being no suitable sheltered appointed available, he was not recommended for retention his service by the competent authority and accordingly he was discharged. The petitioner was again brought before Release Medical Board as per Army order 3189 and a Medical Board was held on 10th January 1992 and it was found that there is 20% disability. The claim of the petitioner for disability was sent to the Controller of Defence Account and the same was also rejected through their letter• 26th August 1992. The petitioner suffered with the injuries which are not attributable to military service in terms of Para-173 of Pension Regulation. It is further pertinent to mention here that the decision of the Chief Controller of Defence Account was also intimated to the petitioner vide Government order dated 31st August 1992. The competent authority is empowered to review / modify / alter the initial Release Medical Board of an individual in terms Para-17 of Entitlement Rule 1982." 5. The stand taken by the respondents for refusing disability pension is that though the disability was assessed to 20 percent but since, the petitioner has suffered injuries when he was on leave, the same is not attributable to or aggravated by military service in terms of para-173 of Pension Regulations. 6. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh vs. Union of India and others reported in 1996 (2) SLR wherein the Court has held that the injuries to an Army personnel even if sustained while he was in casual leave will still entitle him for disability pension as the Army personnel on casual leave is treated to be on duty. Hence the petitioner would be entitled to disability pension. In para-5 of the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:- . "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. 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. " 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Balwant Singh Vs. Union of India reported in 1999 (2) SLR, page 226, in which the learned Single Judge in para-3 of the said judgment has held as under: "Mr. A.K. Walia, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised one basic argument before me. He has pointed out that under Regulation 173 of the Pension Regulations for Army 1961, an individual could be given the benefit of the disability element of pension if he had been invalided out of service on account of disability which was attributable to or aggravated by military service and assessed at 20% or more and that the question whether disability was attributable to or aggravated by military service was to be determined with reference to Appendix /I to the Regulation. He has then pointed out that Note 2(d) to Appendix/I specifically provided that a person who was proceeding from his duty station to his leave or vice versa and travelling at public expense, would be deemed to be on duty for the purpose of eligibility of the payment of disability pension and as the petitioner was returning to his unit after availing of his leave when he had sustained injuries after having been thrown out of a running train, the petitioner was entitled to the disability element of his pension as well. Mr. Walia has, in this connection, placed reliance upon Joginder Singh (Lance Dafadar) v. Union of India and others 1996 (2) S.L.R. 149, Chatroo Ram v. Secretary, Defence and others 1991 (1) S.L.R. 678 and also a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Jarnail Singh v. Union of India and others 1997 (2) P.L.R. 580: [1998 (1) SLR 418 (Pb. & Hry.)). & Hry.)). In Joginder Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the petitioner, a Lance Dafadar in the regular Army, had sustained injuries in an accident when he was proceeding on casual leave from his duty station to his home in District Faridkot as the journey was being performed on a concession voucher issued at public expense, he was entitled to the payment of disability pension. The Division Bench judgment also observed that all that was required in order to attract Regulation 173 was that the official was on public duty when he had sustained injuries which had led to the disability in question, that it was immaterial whether the injury was sustained while the person was on casual leave or annual leave. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, it is evident that Note 2 (d) to Appendix /I would fully apply to the facts of the case in hand. The record of the Release Medical Board has been produced in Court by Mr. Anil Malhotra and it is apparent there from that the petitioner had suffered injury on 26-08-1974 after availing of his annual leave at public expenses, as he was returning to his unit by train. " 8. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2000 (1) UPLBEC, page 347 in which Hon'ble the Supreme Court while interpreting Rule 10 of Defence Services Regulations, has held that this Rule is a deeming provision which provides for situations under which a person on duty, if he suffers disability, is entitled to the grant of disability pension. The last part of this sub-rule provides that 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. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the Rule makers did not intend to deprive the Army personnel of benefit of the disability pension solely on the ground that the cost of journey was not borne by the public exchequer. If the journey was authorised, it can make no difference whether the fare for the same came from the public exchequer or the army personnel himself. If the journey was authorised, it can make no difference whether the fare for the same came from the public exchequer or the army personnel himself. In the present case, the petitioner was authorised to avail leave, as he was granted two months leave, during which he has sustained injuries. 9. Since, it is not disputed that the petitioner's disability was assessed by the respondents at 20 percent, the respondents' action refusing disability pension solely on the ground that the petitioner has sustained injuries during his leave period when he was at home and the injury sustained by him was not attributed to or aggravated by military service is not, at all, sustainable. In view of the principle laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, I am of the view that the Provision should be interpreted liberally so as to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the Rule especially when the Provision is the beneficial Provision. 10. For the reasons recorded above the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 3108-1992 issued by the Garhwal Rifles, Records Lansdowne and order dated 31-12-1993 issued by the O.P. Srivastava, Add!. Secretary Govt. of India (annexure nos. 5 & 7 to the writ petition) are hereby set-aside. No order as to costs.