JUDGEMENT KULDIP SINGH, J.- 1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.04.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.893 of 2003 with a direction to appellants to pay disability pension to respondent af ter computing arrears within a period of three months from the date the certified copy is supplied to them. 2. THE facts, in brief, are that respondent had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing communication dated 27.09.1994 rejecting the disability pension of the respondent, communication dated 13.08.1996, communication dated 31.07.1997 (sic 31.03.1997) and communication dated 01.03.1998 (sic 11.03.1998) rejecting the appeal of the respondent for disability pensi on. The claim of the respondent for disability pension was rejected on 27.09.1994 by the competent authority on the ground that injury was not attributable to military service. In the appellate order, it was observed that respondent had sustained injury on 11.08.1989 (sic 04.08.1989) when he fell down from a civil bus. Thus, no military duty was being performed by the respondent at that time. The learned Single Judge while allowing the petition has relied Lance Dafadar Joginder Singh vs. Union of India and others 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 232. In the impugned judgment, it has been observed that admittedly respondent had suffered injury when he was on leave. It has also been observed that since the respondent had suffered injury while on leave, he was to be treated on duty. The injury suffered by respondent is attributable to military service and, therefore, respondent is entitled to disability pension. 3. IN Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others versus Ajit Singh (2009) 7 SCC 328 , the respondent was enrolled in military service on 29.09.1985, he had filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to disability pension with effect from 31.03.1990. According to him, during the course of his service, he had 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 31.03.1990. He claimed disability pension. The appellants in that case took the stand that respondent had suffered electric shock while he was on casual leave and working in his house near the tubewell. In any event, respondent had not completed 10 years of service. Therefore, there is no question of granting any disability pension. 4. He claimed disability pension. The appellants in that case took the stand that respondent had suffered electric shock while he was on casual leave and working in his house near the tubewell. In any event, respondent had not completed 10 years of service. Therefore, there is no question of granting any disability pension. 4. THE claim of the respondent was allowed by trial Court, District Judge and High Court. In the Supreme Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that disability is not attributable to or aggravated by military service. The respondent had not completed the period of requisite service and, therefore, he is not entitled to disability pension. The Supreme Court held that judgment of High Court is clearly unsustainable and the same was set-aside. On the facts of that case it was observed that payment, if any, already made to the respondent by way of disability pension not to be recovered. In Union of India and Ors. v. Jujhar Singh 2011 AIR SCW 4310, the respondent was on annual leave to his place in the year 1987, he met with an accident on 26.03.1987 and sustained severe injuries. He was admitted in the hospital from 26.03.1987 to 20.01.1989. Later on, respondent was admitted in Military Hospital, Dehradun, after treatment he was placed in medical category BEE (Permanent) and percentage of disability was ascertained as 20%. After he joined the duty, respondent was kept under observation by the Medical Board and his disability was assessed as 60% for two years. The Medical Board opined that disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service. 5. THE appellants rejected the disability pension claim of the respondent. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the appellants which order was assailed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has held as follows:- "8.It is clear that if a person concerned found suffering from disability attributable to or aggravated by military service, he shall be granted disability pension. The other condition is that the disability is to be examined/ assessed by Service Medical Authorities and based upon their opinion a decision has to be taken by the authority concerned. The respondent should satisfy the conditions specified in the Regulation. The other condition is that the disability is to be examined/ assessed by Service Medical Authorities and based upon their opinion a decision has to be taken by the authority concerned. The respondent should satisfy the conditions specified in the Regulation. In this case, it is the definite stand of the authorities that disability has neither occurred in the course of employment nor attributable to or aggravated by military service. We have already pointed out and it is not in dispute that the respondent was on annual leave when he met with a scooter accident as a pillion rider and sustained injuries on 26.03.1987 at his native place. He was not on military duty at the time of the accident in terms of Para 12(d) of Entitlement Rules, 1982 as clarified vide Government of India, Ministry referred letter. No.1(1)/81(PEN) C/Vol.II dated 27.10.1998. In view of the same, the injuries sustained cannot be held to be attributable to the military service." 6. IN communication dated 27.09.1994 while rejecting the disability pension of the respondent, it has been observed that disability was not attributable to military service. In the appellate order dated 31.03.1997, it has been observed thus:- "1. Refer to your petition dated 06 Mar 97. 2. Your case for grant of disability pension has already been considered carefully by Govt. of India, Min of Def. In this connection please refer to para 2 of Govt. of India, Min of Def letter no.7(1698)/95/D (Pen A& AC) dated 13 Aug 96 under which it has been clearly mentioned that you had sustained injury on 11 Aug 89 while falling down from a civil bus while going to the market. No Mill duty was being performed by you at the material time of accident. 3. In view of the above your disability cannot be considered as attributable to Mil Service." In Lance Dafadar Joginder Singh (supra), the appellant 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 the accident and suffered severe injuries. He was performing journey on a concession voucher and was on casual leave. No army regulation or rule was brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant was not entitled to disability pension. While boarding the train at Babina Railway Station, he got involved in the accident and suffered severe injuries. He was performing journey on a concession voucher and was on casual leave. No army regulation or rule was brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant was not entitled to disability pension. On those facts, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the respondent to grant disability pension to the appellant. 7. IN the present case, there is no averment in the petition that injury sustained by respondent had casual connection with military service. On the contrary, it is the admitted case of the parties that respondent sustained injuries when he fell down from a civil bus while travelling in the village. In Jujhar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court has approved the view taken by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ex.N.K. Dilbag v. Union of India and others 2008 (106) Delhi Reported Judgment 865, as follows:- "24. To sum up our analysis, the foremost feature, consistently highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is that it requires to be established that the injury or fatality suffered by the concerned military personnel bears a casual connection with military service. Secondly, if this obligation exists so far as discharge from the Armed Forces on the opinion of a Medical Board the obligation and responsibility a fortiori exists so far as injuries and fatalities suffered during casual leave are concerned. Thirdly, as a natural corollary it is irrelevant whether the concerned personnel was on casual or annual leave at the time or at the place when and where the incident transpired. This is so because it is the casual connection which alone is relevant. Fourthly, since travel to and fro the place of posting may not appear to everyone as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the Pension Regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for Disability Pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. Fifthly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has simply given effect to this Rule and has not laid down in any decision that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim Disability Pension. Fifthly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has simply given effect to this Rule and has not laid down in any decision that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim Disability Pension. Sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the Authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. Such like provisions have been adverted to by the Supreme Court only to buttress their conclusion that travel to and fro the place of posting is an incident of military service. Lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for Disability Pension. This is so regardless of whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. This is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established." 8. IN view of Jujhar Singh (supra), it is clear that injury must have casual connection with the military service. It is not relevant whether the concerned personnel was on casual or annual leave at the time or at the place when and where the accident took place. The casual connection with military service alone is relevant. For travel to and fro from the place of posting, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement of disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. In Lance Dafadar Joginder Singh (supra), the appellant was travelling from the place of posting to his native place on concession voucher. Whereas, in the present case, though the respondent was on casual leave when he sustained injury, but it is not even his case that at that time he was travelling from his place of posting to his village or he was returning from his village to his place of posting. In addition, there is no averment that at the time of sustaining injury, the respondent was discharging any military duty. Therefore, it cannot be said that injury sustained by respondent is attributable to his army service. The learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating this aspect. The impugned judgment, thus, is not sustainable. In addition, there is no averment that at the time of sustaining injury, the respondent was discharging any military duty. Therefore, it cannot be said that injury sustained by respondent is attributable to his army service. The learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating this aspect. The impugned judgment, thus, is not sustainable. In view of above, the appeal is allowed, impugned judgment is set-aside and petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.