More than five decades after he sustained an injury that left him disabled for life, a former Lieutenant in the Indian Army was granted relief by the Telangana High Court, which dismissed a writ petition filed by the Centre, and upheld an order that granted disability pension to the veteran.
The judgment by Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, on August 11, stated that the veteran’s injuries, sustained in a road accident while returning to duty during wartime, were sufficient grounds for receiving the pension. He was denied disability pension because his injuries were sustained while on leave.
“This Court, having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, is of the view that the respondent had availed one day Casual Leave on 09.11.1971 to visit his parents and while returning to the war front in Jammu and Kashmir during the India-Pakistan war, 1971, the respondent had sustained injuries,” said the bench.
The writ petition arose from a challenge filed by the Union of India to an order issued by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chennai Circuit Bench at Hyderabad in 2024. The Centre’s counsel, representing the Deputy Solicitor General of India, argued that the veteran was not entitled to a disability pension because his injuries were sustained while he was on leave.
The counsel argued that the injuries were neither “attributable nor aggravated due to military service” because the accident occurred while the veteran was on leave.
The veteran was recruited on December 21, 1969, and was medically invalidated from service on August 25, 1973, after serving for 3 years, 8 months, and 5 days.
Counsel for the veteran contended that the injuries were sustained on November 9, 1971, when he was returning from a one-day casual leave to visit his parents in Vijayawada. He was on his way back to report for duty in Jammu and Kashmir, where his unit, the 54th Infantry Division, Secunderabad, had been deployed in November 1971. The road accident resulted in “Fracture Dislocation D12-L1 with Paraplegia,” a critical injury.
Story continues below this ad
However, the veteran successfully argued before the Armed Forces Tribunal that he was entitled to the pension because the injuries were sustained while returning to report for duty. The Tribunal allowed the veteran’s application, and directed the petitioners to grant the disability pension.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision in its ruling. The court concluded that the Tribunal was “justified in allowing the O.A. in favour of the respondent” and stated that it was “not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal”.
As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
