[2026:RJ-JP:2915-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18495/2024 Ex Hav Birju Ram Saini S/o Shri Ram Lal Saini, R/o Village And Post Ponk, Tehsil Udaipur Wati, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Uoi, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defense, South Block, Govt. Of India, New Delhi-110 011 2. The Pcda (P), Prayagraj, Up-211014 3. The Oic Records, Army Air Defense Records, Pin 908 803, C/o 56 Apo ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anjali Minocha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi with Ms. Nandini Chaturvedi Ms. Rakshita Chaturvedi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 22/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the learned Tribunal’), whereby the original application filed on behalf of the applicant was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Tribunal, are as under:- “2. The applicant was enrolled in the Army on 13.07.1999 in the Air Defence Regiment in the trade of OPR and after his basic military training, he was posted to 129 Air Defence Regiment and thereafter [2026:RJ-JP:2915-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-18495/2024] served in various locations, including Jammu and Kashmir and had also participated in Operation PARAKRAM. During his 10 days Casual Leave from 20.12.2011 to 29.12.2011, while the applicant was going by, his Motor Cycle for his return journey train reservation to his nearest railway station, Neemka Thana, on 25.12.2011, he slipped and his motor cycle fell on his right leg and thus sustained fracture patella (Right) and was treated at Base Hospital, Delhi cant. He was placed in low medical category and was discharged from service on 31.1.2016 through release medical board instead of invaliding medical board with exemplary conduct during his service of 16 years, 6 months and 19 days, without issuing a show cause notice. He was granted service pension, but not granted disability element of pension sustained by him during his service in the performance of duty. In support of his claim, the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment dated 08.3.2016 passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in the case of Ex Sgt AK Verma Vs UOI & Ors and, hence, submits that he is also eligible for grant of disability pension. He has also placed reliance on the orders passed by various Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal in similar cases. Having been aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA praying for relief. 3. The Respondents have filed a Reply Statement and stated that the applicant [2026:RJ-JP:2915-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-18495/2024] was enrolled in the Army on 13.7.99 and on culmination of the basic military training, he was permanently posted to 129 Air Defence Regiment on 22.5.2001. He also did his stint with the RR Bn in Jammu and Kashmir on ERE. While serving with 129 Air Defence Regiment, the applicant was granted 10 days casual leave from 20.12.2011 to 29.12.2011. During the leave, on 25.12.2011, the applicant got injured at his right knee due to falling of his motor cycle on his right leg. The applicant reported sick and admitted in Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt on 27.12.2011 and diagnosed as a case of “Fracture Patella (Rt)” and was discharged from hospital on 29.12.2011 alongwith four weeks’ sick leave. On review by the Classified Specialist, Orthopaedic, the applicant was recommended to be placed in low medical category and on subsequent review, the remained in low medical category wef 07.2.2012. A Court of Inquiry held on 09.3.2012 to investigate the circumstances under which the applicant has sustained injury opined that the injury sustained by the applicant was not attributable to military service in peace area. Based on his willingness to continue in service, the Commanding Officer of the Unit, despite his medical restrictions, retained the applicant in service in public interest wef 25.6.2013. The disability of the applicant has been reviewed by a review medical board which placed him in low medical category [2026:RJ-JP:2915-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-18495/2024] Permanent. While the applicant was willing to continue further service, but his retention in service was not recommended by the Commanding Officer due to non- availability of sheltered appointment in the Unit. Accordingly, based on the recommendations of the Commanding Officer, Army Air Defence Records issued the discharge order of the applicant vide Order dated 21.8.2015. The RMB held on 21.9.2015 assessed the disability of the applicant, “Fracture Patella (Rt)”, @ 15- 19% for life, with net assessment qualifying for grant of disability pension at NIL for life, considering it as neither attributable to no aggravated (NANA) by military service. The applicant was discharged from service wef 01.2.2016 on medical grounds under Rule 13 (3) Item III (iii) (a) (I) of Army Rules 1954. The applicant was granted Invalid Pension vide PPO dated 23.9.2016. Respondents further submits that the applicant is not eligible for grant of disability element of pension in terms of Para 173 of Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Part I, which was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 28.3.2016 with an advice to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Committee on First Appeal within six months from the date of receipt of ibid letter. With regard to the reliance made by the counsel for the applicant on the Orders/judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and various Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal in support of his [2026:RJ-JP:2915-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-18495/2024] argument, the Respondents have stated that the nature and circumstances of the cases vary from case to case. Therefore, these judgment/orders cannot be applied in the case of the applicant herein. In the instant case, the applicant sustained injury while on Leave at his home town which was considered as neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service by the duly constituted Court of Inquiry, which was also endorsed in the Injury Report of the applicant. Under the circumstances, the Respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA with costs.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:- i. Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC 3378. ii. Gurdeep Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., OA No.1493/2021, decided on 14.10.2022 (AFT, Chandigarh). iii. Rohitash Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors., OA No.320/2019, decided on 18.01.2021 (AFT, Lucknow). iv. Barkat Masih vs. Union of India & Ors., CWP No.17792/2013, decided on 23.05.2014 (P&H High Court). v. Pura Ram Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors., O.A. 477/2023 with MA 862/2023 decided on 16.07.2024, (AFT, Jaipur) 4. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ex. Naik Ram Singh reported in [2026:RJ-JP:2915-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-18495/2024] 2022 AIR (SC) 3383, wherein, para No.10, it has been held as under:- “10. What is held above, is the binding precedent. In the present case, as noted earlier, two days after the respondent reached the leave station, he met with an accident on a public road. There is absolutely no nexus between the Military service and injuries sustained by the respondent. There is not even a casual connection. The Tribunal has completely overlooked this aspect which goes to the root of the matter. Hence, the respondent was not entitled to the disability pension.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is evident from the record, including the statement made by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer that the injury occurred while he was taking out his motorcycle from his garage during leave at his home. The accident admittedly occurred while the petitioner was not on duty. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. (supra), we are of the considered view that there is absolutely no nexus between the Military service and injuries sustained by the petitioner. 8. In our considered view, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the original application filed on behalf of the applicant. [2026:RJ-JP:2915-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-18495/2024] 9. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed. All the pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /52