Per Mansoor, J.;— 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2010 passed by the Writ Court in SWP No. 2829/2002, whereby and where under the writ respondents were directed to grant disability pension in favour of writ petitioner, i.e., wife of deceased employee, namely, Sh. Raj Kumar (hereinafter, for short, impugned judgment), on the grounds taken in it. 2. The facts in brief are that the husband of writ petitioner, namely, Sh. Raj Kumar, was enrolled in the Indian Army in the year 1989 and was boarded out from service on 16.07.1993 on account of 70% disability suffered by him. The claim made for grant of disability pension came to be rejected on 30.01.1994 on the ground that the disability suffered by the deceased was not attributable to military service. 3. It was averred in the writ petition that on 29.04.1992 while the deceased was on Guard duty, he accidentally pressed the trigger of his rifle, as a result of which the bullet hit the deceased causing injuries to him and he became disabled. And because of his disability, which was assessed at 70%, he was boarded out from the Army service. The claim for grant of disability pension was made on the ground that the injuries suffered were attributable to army service, which with the passage of time got aggravated and ultimately became the cause of his death. The appellant-Union of India rejected the claim of writ petitioner only on the ground that the disability suffered by the husband of writ petitioner was because of his own negligence as he had failed to handle the rifle with due care and caution. 4. It is the admitted fact that while on active duty the husband of writ petitioner sustained injuries because of his own negligence. Thus, the disability was suffered by him while in service. If the said injuries were caused due to his negligence or omission on his part, that would have been a ground for taking action against him but, by no stretch of imagination, the same can be a ground for. denying disability pension. 5. Thus, the disability was suffered by him while in service. If the said injuries were caused due to his negligence or omission on his part, that would have been a ground for taking action against him but, by no stretch of imagination, the same can be a ground for. denying disability pension. 5. The Writ Court has rightly held that if the deceased had failed to take proper care or follow the safety measures to handle the rifle that would have been a ground for taking action against him as per the rules, but it cannot be said and held that the said injuries were not attributable to military service. 6. The pension is a deferred salary akin to right of property. It is well known that pension is not a bounty and the person entitled to the pension cannot be deprived of the same. 7. Viewed thus, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is legal one and needs no interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed along with all connected CM As.