JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant Petition filed under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, petitioner Ranjit Singh, Ex-sepoy No. 3989129Y prays for grant of disability pension from the date of his discharge from army service on 31.03.2002 on the ground that the injury sustained by the petitioner in his right palm while on casual leave was attributable to military service in as-much-as the petitioner was posted at Udhampur in J & K at the relevant time and he was deemed to be on "Active Service" and further that the casual leave would count "on duty." It is further urged in the petition that the Crush injury was suffered by the petitioner in his right index-finger leading to traumatic amputation when an engine he was repairing fell down over his right hand when he was posted at Bandipora, Kashmir. It is asserted that the petitioner suffered composite disability of 30% for life but the same was erroneously declared as not connected with service notwithstanding the fact that Crush injury was suffered by the petitioner in the course of performance of duty. It is further asserted that no Court of Inquiry was convened in respect of Crush injury suffered by the petitioner and the petitioner was discharged from service on Medical grounds due to non-availability of shelter appointment in terms of letter dated 07.12.2001. It is further asserted that the petitioner preferred appeals against the rejection of his claim for grant of Disability pension but the same were dismissed on flimsy grounds. It is asserted that extraneous considerations weighed with the Appellate Authority which did not decide the appeals in accordance with norms in vogue at the time of discharge of the petitioner from Service. Respondents have contested the petition on the pleas taken in the written statement. It is pleaded that the petitioner, while serving with 4 Dogra was granted 10 days casual leave w.e.f. 30.7.1998 and on 13.8.1998 petitioner reported to MI Room 4 Dogra with complaint of having sustained injury in his right hand while sharpening knife during his leave period. The petitioner was medically examined and placed in Low Medical category CEE (T) for six months. The petitioner was medically examined and placed in Low Medical category CEE (T) for six months. The principal disability of the petitioner was declared as "Incised injury right palm with Flexor Tender injury and the Index and Middle fingers." A Court of Inquiry was held and based on its findings and the injury report the petitioner's injury was declared as "not attributable to military service". It is pleaded that the petitioner was on leave and in his home, therefore, the injury could not be said to have occurred while in "active service" in as much as the same was not sustained by the petitioner while on actual performance of duties. It is pleaded that the petitioner was subsequently placed in permanent low medical category BEE (permanent) w.e.f. 26.8.1999 for two years. Since the petitioner was willing to continue in service, he was retained in service. However, on 20.7.2000 petitioner sustained Crush injury right index-finger traumatic amputation due to fall of engine of vehicle on his right index-finger. Petitioner was admitted at 166 Military Hospital and after his discharge he was brought before a Review Medical Board which recommended that the petitioner be continued in Low Medical category S1H1A2 (permanent) P1E1 for two years. The petitioner rendered his unwillingness to continue in service and his discharge was approved. The Dogra regiment issued Discharge Order of the petitioner vide letter dated 7.12.2001 and a show cause notice was served on him. The petitioner conveyed his consent to be discharged from service. The petitioner was brought before the Release Medical Board on 11.1.2002 which diagnosed his injuries as "Incised injury right palm with Flexor Tender injury Right Ring and Middle finger" and "Amputation Right Index finger" at 14% and 12% respectively for life and regarded the same as "neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service." Consequently the petitioner was discharged from service on 31.3.2002 in Low Medical category S1H1A3 (permanent) P1E1 before completion of initial terms of engagement after rendering 13 years and 197 days including 172 of non-qualifying service for pension. It is further pleaded that the only service element of disability pension w.e.f. 1.4.2002 was sanctioned in favour of petitioner while his claim for disability element of the disability pension was rejected on the ground that the disability "Incised injury right palm" was "not attributable to nor aggravated by military service." It is further pleaded that after receiving the monetary benefits on his discharge from service the petitioner remained silent for more than 8 years and the appeals preferred belatedly were rejected on the ground that personnel below Officer rank who are discharged prematurely at their own request or on administrative grounds after earning four or more red-ink entries are not eligible for grant of disability pension. It is pleaded that the petitioner had conveyed his consent to be discharged from service and that he had earned more than four red ink entries which justified rejection of his claim for disability pension. Lastly it is pleaded that the petitioner was not entitled for disability pension in terms of para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (part 1) as his disability was assessed as "neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner for disability element of the pension has been arbitrarily rejected. It is contended that the first injury was sustained by the petitioner while he was on casual leave which counts "on duty" and the petitioner was working and residing in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, which has been duly notified as an area where all persons subject to Army Act are deemed to be on "Active Service". It is further contended that the palm injury was sustained by the petitioner while deemed to be on "Active Service" the Crush injury was suffered due to fall of engine while the petitioner was actually performing his duty. Thus, it is contended, both the injuries sustained by the petitioner were "attributable to military service" and petitioner was entitled to disability element of pension. 3. Thus, it is contended, both the injuries sustained by the petitioner were "attributable to military service" and petitioner was entitled to disability element of pension. 3. Learned CGSC, per contra, contended that the petitioner suffered Palm injury while on casual leave and, apart from the inconsistent versions regarding the circumstances in which such injury was sustained by the petitioner, disability pension would not be admissible as the petitioner was engaged merely in a private act in his home and this act did not bear any casual connection with the performance of duty. It is contended that the Crush injury suffered by the petitioner subsequently has been assessed only causing 12% disability and the same does not entitle the petitioner to claim disability pension. 4. Heard the rival sides and perused the record on the file. The factum of sustaining of both injuries on two different occasions, the nature of injuries and the disability arising therefrom is not in controversy. It is admitted position in the case that the petitioner was on casual leave and in his home located in the State of Jammu and Kashmir when he sustained injury to right palm purportedly while sharpening the blade of fodder cutter at home. In so far as the Crush injury sustained by the petitioner to his right Index finger leading to traumatic amputation due to fall of engine of vehicle on his right index finger is concerned, it is not in controversy that the Crush injury was sustained while the petitioner was performing his duty at his work place. The controversy is, therefore, limited to the incised injury to right palm sustained while the petitioner was on casual leave. The issue for consideration is whether the petitioner, while engaged in a domestic act at his leave station located in the State of Jammu and Kashmir during the period of casual leave, would be treated as "on duty" as also "on active service" for the purposes of determining whether sustaining of the incised injury to right palm of the petitioner assessed for the purpose of disability @ 14% for life would count for disability pension. Reference to provisions of Army Act would be inevitable. Section 3(i) of the Army Act specifies persons who are deemed to be on active service. Reference to provisions of Army Act would be inevitable. Section 3(i) of the Army Act specifies persons who are deemed to be on active service. It provides that time during which a person subject to Army Act is attached to or forms part of a force engaged in operations against an enemy or is engaged in military operations in or is on the line of march to a place occupied by the enemy or is attached to or forms part of force which is in military occupation of a foreign country, such person is deemed to be "on active service." This definition of 'on active service' however is not exhaustive and the Central Government is empowered under Section 92 of the said Act to declare persons to be on active service by a notification. In terms of SRO 17E, dated 5.9.1977 Central Govt., has declared that all persons subject to Army Act while serving in J & K State shall be deemed to be on active service within the meaning of that Act. Thus, even if an army personnel is not covered under the definition of active service under section 3 of the Act, in terms of notification aforesaid he is still deemed to be in active service provided he is serving in the J & K State. That apart, in terms of notification SRO 6E, dated 29th November, 1962 issued by Ministry of Defence all persons subject to Army Act, who are not "on active service" under Section 3(i) thereof, shall, wherever they may be serving, be deemed to be "on active service" within the meaning and for the purposes of the said Act. This notification is very wide in terms and covers all persons wherever they may be serving. The effect of this notification read in juxtaposition with Rule 9 of the Leave Rules governing the Armed Forces would be that a person subject to the Army Act would be deemed to be "on active service" even when he is on casual leave. In the case in hand the petitioner admittedly was on causal leave when he sustained the palm injury in his right hand. In the case in hand the petitioner admittedly was on causal leave when he sustained the palm injury in his right hand. His leave station was also located in the State of J & K. This being an undisputed fact, the petitioner, even while on casual leave, would be deemed to be on active service, more so as it is indisputable that casual leave counts as duty. Thus, the petitioner even though on casual leave, would be deemed to be on active service. Viewed thus, petitioner must be held to have sustained the palm injury in his right hand while on active service. This view is fortified by the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balbir Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab, (1995) 1 SCC 90 , Nand Kishore Mishra vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 205 and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of J & K rendered in Pritam Singh vs. State and Others, JKJ Soft JKJ/23232 (Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1979). 5. Though petitioner was granted service pension, disability pension was denied to him on the ground that palm injury was not attributable to military service. It is not disputed that the petitioner ran from pillar to post for redressal of his grievance. He not only filed application under RTI for procurement of vital documents pertaining to his claim but also preferred 1st and second appeal against the rejection of his claim for disability pension. However, his grievance went un-redressed. It would, therefore, be futile on part of the respondents to contest the petitioner's claim on the ground of delay. Once it is held that the petitioner sustained the injury on palm of his right hand while on casual leave treated as "on duty" and that such injury had been sustained while on active service as noticed herein-above, there is no justification on part of the respondents in contending that the petitioner had been discharged at his own request which did not warrant grant of disability pension. It is well settled by the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 24171, vide order dated 4.1.2008 that the disability pension cannot be denied to the individual merely on the ground that he has obtained premature retirement at his own request on compassionate grounds. It is well settled by the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 24171, vide order dated 4.1.2008 that the disability pension cannot be denied to the individual merely on the ground that he has obtained premature retirement at his own request on compassionate grounds. Therefore, according of consent for discharge on part of the petitioner would not disentitle him for disability element of pension. 6. It emanates from the opinion of the Medical Board that the incised injury right palm of the petitioner was assessed at 14% for life, whereas the Crush injury to right ring and middle finger leading to amputation of right Index finger was assessed at 12% for life. Composite assessment of the disabilities was shown at 30%. Both injuries, as held herein-above, were sustained while on active service. Admittedly petitioner did not engage in any criminal activity or participate in any act of hazardous nature when he sustained the palm injury at his leave station. It is also not the case of respondents that the petitioner has caused self inflicted injuries to obtain any undue benefit. It is, therefore, rightly claimed that the injury was received accidentally. The petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to disability element of the disability pension for being invalided out on medical grounds. 7. The issue further is whether the petitioner would be entitled to benefit of rounding off. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment dated 19.12.2014 rendered by Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in Mahal Singh vs. Union of India and Others, wherein it is held that where the individual was discharged before completion of his engagement on medical ground in low medical category, he shall be deemed to have been invalided out of military service and shall be entitled to rounding off his disability to 50% if the disability assessed is below 50%. The judgment referred to takes note of para 7.2 of the Ministry of Defence letter dated 31.1.2001 wherein it is laid down that where an armed forces personnel is invalided out under circumstances mentioned in para 4.1, the percentage of disability where less than 50% will be reckoned as 50% for computing disability element. Since the petitioner was invalided out under para 4.1, the composite assessment of disabilities @ 30% will be reckoned as 50% and rounding off to 50% would be applicable. Since the petitioner was invalided out under para 4.1, the composite assessment of disabilities @ 30% will be reckoned as 50% and rounding off to 50% would be applicable. This is in conformity with dictum of law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in KJS Buttar vs. Union of India, decided on 31.3.2011, where rounding off was allowed from 50% to 70%. Even Circular No. 301, dated 27.5.2002 from PCDA (P), Allahabad lays down that the individuals discharged from military service before completion of service tenure on medical grounds in Low Medical category are to be considered as invalided out of military service and entitled to benefits of rounding off disability elements. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the issue of rounding off in Civil Appeal No. 418 of 2012, titled Union of India and Others vs. Ram Avtar, decided on 10.12.2014 held that irrespective of the mode of discharge if the petitioner is getting or is held entitled to the disability pension, it shall be rounded off, as per the policy of respondents w.e.f. 1.1.1996 or from the date of discharge whichever is later. The petitioner has been discharged from the army service on 31.3.2002 and being a post 1.1.1996 retiree he is deemed to be invalided out of service. In terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Avtar's case petitioner is held entitled for the benefit of rounding off w.e.f. date of his discharge by computing his disability to 50% as against composite assessment of disability at 30% for life as per opinion of the Medical Board. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the findings of the Medical Board that palm injury sustained by petitioner was not attributable to military service, cannot be sustained. Likewise the rejection of petitioner's appeals by the 1st and 2nd Appellate Authority is unsustainable. All contentions raised by Respondents having been repelled, the petition is allowed. Amended PPO shall be issued by the respondents and the arrears of disability element of disability pension with rounding off to 50% from the date of discharge shall be paid to the petitioner after making necessary calculations within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order by the respondents failing which petitioner shall be entitled to simple interest @ 8% from the date of his discharge. 1. 1. "active service" as applied to a person subject to this Act, means the time during which such person: (a) is attached to, or forms part of, a force which is engaged in operations against an enemy. (b) is engaged in military operations in, or is on the line of march to, a country or place wholly or partly occupied by an enemy. (c) is attached to or forms part of a force which is in military occupation of a foreign country. 2.9. Power to declare persons to be on active service - Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i) of section 3, the Central Government may, by notification, declare that any person or class of persons subject to this Act shall, with reference to any area in which they may be serving or with reference to any provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to be on active service within the meaning of this Act.