JUDGMENT : 1. The Union of India was the respondent before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (AFT for short) resisting the claim of the applicant, a Havilder for grant of disability element of disability pension. AFT vide its order dated 18.06.2024 has allowed the applicant's claim holding that the applicant is entitled to grant of disability element of disability pension at 20 per cent and by rounding it off to 50 per cent for life. The benefit has been found admissible from the date next to the date of his discharge from service that is 01.05.2020. The direction was issued for release of the benefits as directed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order failing which the same was to carry interest at 8 per cent per annum from the date of the order of the Tribunal, till its realization by the applicant. 2. The brief facts which give rise to the applicant's claim is that he was posted in the 59 Infantry Division Provost Unit at Panagarh. He was assigned some duty by the Unit Company Havilder Major on 7 th February, 2019. After completing the work assigned to him and completing his evening roll call thereafter he was returning to his residential accommodation within the unit. While going back on motor cycle the motor cycle slipped on some cow dung lying on the road. The motor cycle went out of control. The applicant fell and suffered an injury in the process for which he was taken to the medical unit. The injury sustained on the left thumb did not heal and an amputation was required. After such injury being sustained the applicant was placed in a low medical category “S1H1A2 (Permanent) P1E1” for the disability of “TRAUMATIC AMPUTATION (LT) THUMB (OPTD)”. 3. The applicant served the force from the date of his enrolment as a Sepoy on 29.04.1994 till his discharge on completion of his engagement on 30.04.2020. He thereafter moved the authorities for grant of the benefit of disability element of disability pension which claim he unsuccessfully pursued upto the second appeal. Thereafter he has approached the AFT by filing the Original Application. The petitioner's application was numbered as O.A. 76 of 2021. The affidavits were exchanged and after hearing the parties, the applicant's claim was allowed. 4. Thereafter he has approached the AFT by filing the Original Application. The petitioner's application was numbered as O.A. 76 of 2021. The affidavits were exchanged and after hearing the parties, the applicant's claim was allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the petitioner is not entitled to disability element of disability pension since he was not on duty at the time he sustained the injury in the accident. There is no casual connection with his duties at the time he sustained the accidental injury as he was not performing any official task as contemplated under Rule 9(a) of the Entitlement Rules, for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2002 (as amended up to 2008), hereinafter referred as 'Entitlement Rules'. 5. There was no casual connection of the disability with military service as required under Rule 6 of the Entitlement Rule and, therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected his claim for grant of the disability element of disability pension (hereinafter referred to as “disability element”). 6. It is further submitted that the injury is not attributable to military service as required under Clause 10 of the Entitlement Rules. 7. The learned counsel for petitioner has also relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India And Others – Vs.- Jujhar Singh reported in (2011) 7 SCC 735 . He has referred to paragraph 13 of the said judgment. We have considered the same, which contains reference to an earlier judgment of the Apex Court under a different Statute, namely the Employees' State Insurance Act. 8. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jujhar Singh (supra) , though also a military personnel is factually distinguishable from this case since the claimant therein sustained the injury while he was on annual leave at his home town. The injury was sustained in a road accident. The facts in the present case as discussed above are at stark variance with the issue arising for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Jujhar Singh (supra). 9. He has drawn our attention to averments made by the respondents while resisting his claim in the affidavit- in-opposition filed on their behalf before the Armed Forces Tribunal. He has laid great emphasis on the stand taken by the respondents therein. 9. He has drawn our attention to averments made by the respondents while resisting his claim in the affidavit- in-opposition filed on their behalf before the Armed Forces Tribunal. He has laid great emphasis on the stand taken by the respondents therein. In para 13, relevant extract of which reads: “In the instant case, the Court of Inquiry, which investigated the circumstances by which the applicant sustained injury, the Commanding Officer, 59 Infantry Division Provost Unit and competent authority who certified Report on Accidental and Self Inflicted Injuries Officers/JCOs/OR/NCs(E) (IAFY-2006) had been concluded that the injury sustained by the applicant was not attributable to military service.” 10. The authorities have gone to the extent of taking a stand before the Tribunal that the injury in question was a self inflicted injury. Such stand of the petitioner is unsustainable as the same is not borne from findings in the Court of Inquiry, or the opinion of the Court of Inquiry, which is being quoted with translation, later in this judgment. 11. From the Court of enquiry proceedings it is apparent that the petitioner fell since his motorcycle skid on cow dung within the unit. Therefore, stand of the respondents that the inquiry is self inflicted appears to be contrary to the Court of enquiry and unsustainable. 12. It is submitted by the learned advocate that these specific issues were raised by the respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, without dealing with such issues has allowed the benefit in favour of the applicant. 13. We have considered the provisions as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners. The core issue arising for consideration is whether the petitioner can be treated to be on duty and whether there is any casual connection with the discharge of duties in respect of the accident/injury sustained, for the purpose of grant of disability element of disability pension. 14. We, therefore, consider it apposite to first consider Rule 10 of the Entitlement Rules. Clause10(a)(i) reads: “10. Attributability (a) Injuries: In respect of accidents or injuries the following rules shall be observed: (i) Injuries sustained when the individual is on duty as defined shall be treated as attributable to Military service (provided a nexus between injury and military service is established)” 15. Clause10(a)(i) reads: “10. Attributability (a) Injuries: In respect of accidents or injuries the following rules shall be observed: (i) Injuries sustained when the individual is on duty as defined shall be treated as attributable to Military service (provided a nexus between injury and military service is established)” 15. Plain reading of this provision reveals that in order to ascertain what is duty for the purpose of disability benefit under the Entitlement Rules we are required to consider the definition of “duty” which has been spelt out in Clause 9 of the Entitlement Rules. 16. Clause 9of the Entitlement Rules reads: “9. Duty: For the purpose of these Rules, a person subject to the disciplinary code of the Armed Forces shall be treated on 'duty': (a) When performing an official task or a task failure to do which would constitute an offence, triable under the disciplinary code applicable to him. (b) When moving from one place of duty to another place of duty irrespective of the mode of movement. (c) During the period of participation in recreation and other unit/sports activities organized or approved by service authorities and during the period of travelling in relation thereto. Note 1: Personnel of the Armed Forces participating in local/national/international sports tournaments as members of service teams; or mountaineering expeditions/gliding organized by service authorities, with the approval of Service HQs, shall be deemed to be 'on duty' for the purpose of these Rules. Note 2: Personnel of Armed Forces participating in sports tournaments or in privately organized mountaineering expeditions of indulging in gliding as a hobby in their individual capacity, shall not be deemed to be 'on duty' for the purpose of these Rules, even though prior permission of the competent service authorities may have been obtained by them. Note 3: Injuries sustained by personnel of the Armed Forces in impromptu games and sports which are organized by or with the approval of the local service authority and death or disability arising from such injuries, will be regarded as having occurred 'on duty' for the purpose of these Rules. Note 3: Injuries sustained by personnel of the Armed Forces in impromptu games and sports which are organized by or with the approval of the local service authority and death or disability arising from such injuries, will be regarded as having occurred 'on duty' for the purpose of these Rules. Note 4: The personnel of the Armed Forces deputed for training at courses conducted by the Himalayan Mountaineering Institute, Darjeeling and other similar institutes shall be treated at par with personnel attending other authorized professional courses or exercise for the Defence Services for the purpose of grant of disability/family pension on account of disability/death sustained during the courses. (d) When proceeding on leave/valid out pass from his duty station to his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station on leave/valid out pass. Note 1: An Armed Forces personnel while travelling between his place of duty to leave station and vice/versa is to be treated on duty irrespective of whether he has availed railway warrant/concession vouchers/cash TA etc or not for the journey. This would also include journey performed from leave station to duty station in case the individual returns early. Note 2: The occurrence of injury should have taken place in reaching the leave station from duty station or vice versa using the commonly available/adopted route and mode of transport. (e) When travelling by a reasonable route from one's official residence to and back from the appointed place of duty, irrespective of the mode of conveyance (whether private or provided by the Government) (f) Death or injury which occurs when an individual is not strictly 'on duty' e.g. on leave, including cases of death/disability as a result of attack by or action against extremists or anti social elements may also be considered attributable to service, provided that it involved risk which was due to his belonging to the Armed Forces and that the same was not a risk faced by a civilian. Death and disability due to personal enmity is not admissible. Note: For the purpose of these Rules, leave shall include casual leave. Leave/casual leave shall not be treated as 'duty' except in situations mentioned above.” 17. Death and disability due to personal enmity is not admissible. Note: For the purpose of these Rules, leave shall include casual leave. Leave/casual leave shall not be treated as 'duty' except in situations mentioned above.” 17. In the instant case the Court of Inquiry conducted to ascertain the cause and nature of injury has recorded the incident in the following terms: “1) No. 7778271 X HAV (M.P.) UZZAL HALDER Jo Ke Permanent Posting 59 INF Div Pro Unit may hai. Tariq 07 Feb 2019 Ko Unit CHM ke dawara dea gaya task ko pura ker ke apne ghar jaa raha tha. D. Comp ke Turning se kuch door pahile he unki gari Gabar ke uper chad gai Aur gari sleep ho gai. Aur vah gari se gir gaye Aur unko chot leg gai. Jismen Hav. Uzzal Halder ko M.H. Pangarh Men Admit hona para. Jaha Dr. dwara Dea gaye Treatment se ghaav ka sahi Nahi Hone ke karn Surgical SPC dwara left Thumb ko 2% cut karna Para. Aur M.H. Panagarh se he (ab- week) ka sick leave bhej Diya per 12 days ka Treatment hone ke baad.” “ TRANSLATION 1) No 7778271 X HAV (MP) UZZAL HALDER whose permanent posting is at 59 INF DIV Pro UNIT. On 07 th Feb 2019 while returning to his home after completing his task given by CHM, a little away towards the approach of the turning of D. Camp his vehicle slipped as it went over cow dung and he fell from his vehicle and suffered injury, due to which HAV UZZAL HALDER got admitted in M.H. Panagarh. After treatment by the doctor as the injury did not heal so by doing surgical SPC, his left thumb had to be amputated (cut) by 2% and sent application for sick leave (06-week) after treatment of 12 days” 18. Based on such facts an opinion has been recorded by the Court of Inquiry in the following terms: “OPINION OF COURT The Court is of opinion that No. 7778271X Rank. Hav- (M.P.) UZZAL HALDER of 59 INF DIV Pro UN jska incident 07 Feb 2019 ko STN HQ Panagarh Ke Pishi D- CAMP Mare ke Nazdik khud ke Gari (MIC) Drive karl Samay Gaber ke UPPER charne, Aur Achanek Fislne ke vajah se Hua. Jiska karan uska Left Hand ke Thumb men choot Aa gai Jo ke sahi Hai. 2. Hav- (M.P.) UZZAL HALDER of 59 INF DIV Pro UN jska incident 07 Feb 2019 ko STN HQ Panagarh Ke Pishi D- CAMP Mare ke Nazdik khud ke Gari (MIC) Drive karl Samay Gaber ke UPPER charne, Aur Achanek Fislne ke vajah se Hua. Jiska karan uska Left Hand ke Thumb men choot Aa gai Jo ke sahi Hai. 2. No. 7778271 X HAV (M.P.) UZZAL Halder ka incident khud ke Motor Cycle Gaber ke UPER se slip Hone ke kar se Hua. 3) Yeh Ghatna Jis avastha Aur Jis Karao men Ghatit Hus UN Hallat ke Uper Hav-UZZAL Halder Ka gari Per Contr Nahi raha.. Jiska karan se yeah incident Ho gaya. Presiding OFFICER: JC. 820001 Sub (M.P.) O.P. Prasa MEMBER :1. No JC-820340 L NB (sub- S.K. R 2. No 7780691 KT HAV (M.P) K. A” “ TRANSLATION 1) The Court is of the opinion that No.7778271X Rank HAV. (M.P), UZZAL HALDER OF 59 INF Div. Pro nit whose incident took place on 7 th Feb. 2019, behind STN HQ PANAGARH, near the D. Camp More (Crossing) while driving his own vehicle (M/C); as the vehicle went over the cow dung and it suddenly skidded. Due to which he suffered injury in his thumb of left hand, which is true. 2) The incident of UZZAL HALDER No. 7778271X Rank HAV. (M.P) happened as his own motor cycle went over cow dung and slipped unexpectedly. 3) In the situation and circumstance, the accident happened, HAV UZZAL HALDER did not have any control over that situation and also over his own vehicle, because of which this incident happened. Sd/- Illegible Presiding Officer – JC-820001 Sub (M.P.) O.P. PRASAD Sd/- Illegible Member – 1) No.-JC 8203401 N. Sub-SKR Sd/- Illegible 2) No. 7780691 HAV (M.P.) K.A” 19. It is apparent from a bare perusal of the Court of Inquiry that the applicant was within the unit and had just completed the work assigned to him by the Company Havilder Major (CHM). Upon completion of his evening roll call, he was returning to his official quarters also within the unit. It is during this period that he has lost control of the motor cycle while slipping on some cow dung lying on the road which has led to his injury resulting in amputation of his left thumb. Upon completion of his evening roll call, he was returning to his official quarters also within the unit. It is during this period that he has lost control of the motor cycle while slipping on some cow dung lying on the road which has led to his injury resulting in amputation of his left thumb. The applicant/petitioner was expected to reside in the official accommodation in the unit and to undertake the journey within the unit from his official accommodation to his assigned work, and back for efficient discharge of his duties and to maintain the normal expected standards of duty expected from a member of the armed forces. Such movement back and forth, within the unit, thus is a way of life for the petitioner/applicant having a direct connection with discharge of his duties as assigned on a day to day basis within the unit. Therefore, the journey from his official accommodation within unit to his assigned place of work also within the unit and the journey back every day cannot be excluded as having no connection with the duties assigned to him in the general course of his military service. 20. The judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the Union of India in the case of Jujhar Singh (supra) was upon consideration of a different set of facts wherein the injury was sustained while on leave, the Apex Court has observed: “23. .... The member of the armed forces who is claiming disability pension must be able to show a normal nexus between the act, omission or commission resulting in an injury to the person and the normal expected standard of duties and way of life expected from a member of such forces....” 21. We also consider it appropriate to take into account another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Government of India and Others – Vs.- Dharambir Singh reported in (2020) 14 SCC 582 wherein para 36 of the said judgment the Apex Court held: “36. We also consider it appropriate to take into account another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Government of India and Others – Vs.- Dharambir Singh reported in (2020) 14 SCC 582 wherein para 36 of the said judgment the Apex Court held: “36. We find that summing up of the following guiding factors by the Tribunal in Jagtar Singh v. Union of India [Jagtar Singh v. Union of India, TA No. 61 of 2010, order dated 2-11-2010 (Tri)] and approved in Sukhwant Singh [Sukhwant Singh v. Union of India, (2012) 12 SCC 228 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 438] and in Vijay Kumar [Union of India v. Vijay Kumar, (2015) 10 SCC 460 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 105] do not warrant any change or modification and the claim of disability pension is required to be dealt with accordingly : (Sukhwant Singh case [Sukhwant Singh v. Union of India, (2012) 12 SCC 228 ; (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 438], SCC pp. 230-31, para 5) “5. ... (a) The mere fact of a person being on “duty” or otherwise, at the place of posting or on leave, is not the sole criteria for deciding attributability of disability/death. There has to be a relevant and reasonable casual connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and present in his unit. It should similarly apply when he is on leave; notwithstanding both being considered as “duty”. (b) If the injury suffered by the member of the armed force is the result of an act alien to the sphere of military service or in no way connected to his being on duty as understood in the sense contemplated by Rule 12 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982, it would neither be the legislative intention nor to our mind would it be the permissible approach to generalise the statement that every injury suffered during such period of leave would necessarily be attributable. (c) The act, omission or commission of which results in injury to the member of the force and consequent disability or fatality must relate to military service in some manner or the other, in other words, the act must flow as a matter of necessity from military service. (c) The act, omission or commission of which results in injury to the member of the force and consequent disability or fatality must relate to military service in some manner or the other, in other words, the act must flow as a matter of necessity from military service. (d) A person doing some act at home, which even remotely does not fall within the scope of his duties and functions as a member of the force, nor is remotely connected with the functions of military service, cannot be termed as injury or disability attributable to military service. An accident or injury suffered by a member of the armed force must have some casual connection with military service and at least should arise from such activity of the member of the force as he is expected to maintain or do in his day-to-day life as a member of the force. (e) The hazards of Army service cannot be stretched to the extent of unlawful and entirely unconnected acts or omissions on the part of the member of the force even when he is on leave. A fine line of distinction has to be drawn between the matters connected, aggravated or attributable to military service, and the matter entirely alien to such service. What falls ex facie in the domain of an entirely private act cannot be treated as legitimate basis for claiming the relief under these provisions. At best, the member of the force can claim disability pension if he suffers disability from an injury while on casual leave even if it arises from some negligence or misconduct on the part of the member of the force, so far it has some connection and nexus to the nature of the force. At least remote attributability to service would be the condition precedent to claim under Rule 173. The act of omission and commission on the part of the member of the force must satisfy the test of prudence, reasonableness and expected standards of behavious. (f) The disability should not be the result of an accident which could be attributed to risk common to human existence in modern conditions in India, unless such risk is enhanced in kind or degree by nature, conditions, obligations or incidents of military service.” 22. (f) The disability should not be the result of an accident which could be attributed to risk common to human existence in modern conditions in India, unless such risk is enhanced in kind or degree by nature, conditions, obligations or incidents of military service.” 22. Keeping in background Rule 9 of the Entitlement Rules, the views expressed by the Supreme Court in these two judgments Jujhar Singh (supra) and Dharambir Singh (supra) we find that in the instant case the injury has been suffered by the petitioner, a member of the armed force while commuting between his official accommodation and to the duty assigned to him within the unit on a day to day basis. It cannot be said that such a journey is not related to military service in any manner whatsoever. The journey back and forth flows as a matter of necessity from a military service and is undertaken in the course of discharge of military duty by the petitioner/applicant, within the unit/cantonment. We further find that the injury has been sustained in an accident which has occurred as a result of risk arising out of and attributable to discharge of his official duties for which he is required to commute back and forth on a day to day basis within the unit. 23. The issue pertaining to Rule 6 raised by the learned advocate for the Union of India that there was no casual connection whatsoever of the disability with military service, in our opinion is thus devoid of any substance. 24. In view of such findings we find no reason to interfere with the AFT order dated 18.06.2024 passed in O.A. No. 76 of 2021. 25. The writ petition is dismissed in these terms. 26. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities.