Supreme Court of India Page 1 of 3

http://JUDIS.NIC.
IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

PETITIONER:
MADAN SINGH SHEKHAWAT
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/08/1999
BENCH:
S.P.Bharucha, N.Santosh Hegde
JUDGMENT:
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.
This appeal arises from the Judgment of the Appellate

Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in
D.B.Spl.Appeal No.100/98 dated 4th February, 1998 confirming
the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the same High
Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4004/91 dated 1st
October, 1997. The appellant had joined the Indian Army as
a Sawar (Horse Rider) in the 17th Horse Unit in September,
1975. He had completed 11 years and six months of service
when he was discharged from the Military Service on medical
grounds on 25th of April, 1987. The cause of his discharge
on medical grounds arose from an accident in which the
appellant was involved on 1.10.1994 while alighting from the
train at Didwara Railway Station, consequent to which
accident appellant’s right hand was amputated just four
inches below from the joint of collar pone. At the time of
the accident, the appellant was travelling from Jodhpur to
his home station on authorised casual leave granted to him.
On discharge from service, on the above stated ground, the
appellant put forth a claim for special disability pension
payable under the relevant rules which though recommended by
higher authorities was rejected by the Controller of Defence
Accounts (Pension), Allahabad on 4.10.1988 solely on the
ground that at the time of the accident the appellant was
not on Military service. The appellant’s
representation/appeal for grant of disability pension having
been rejected, as stated above, he approached the learned
Single Judge of the High Court by way of a writ petition.
The writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that
the petitioner was not entitled for this disability pension
on the limited ground that at the time of the accident the
he was travelling at his own expenses, therefore, the
relevant rule did not permit the grant of disability
pension. The appellant’s appeal to the Division Bench
having met with the same fate, he is now before us in this
appeal by special leave. There is no dispute that at the
time of the accident, the appellant was travelling to his
home town which is termed as ‘leave station’ under the rules
on casual leave granted to him by the Competent Authority.
The grant of disability pension is governed by the various
rules found in Defence Services Regulation. Rule 10 of the
said rules reads thus :- "Casual leave counts as duty except
as provided for in Rule 11(a)."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
As per this rule when an army personnel is on casual

leave, same is counted as duty unless he comes under any one
of the exceptions under Rule 11(a) of the rules. It is not
the case of the respondents that the appellant comes under
any such exceptions. Therefore, as per Rule 10(a), the
appellant was on duty at the time of the accident. Rule 48
of the said regulation contemplates admissibility of
disability pension. It has enumerated various cases under
which an army personnel is entitled to the grant of
disability pension. Rule 48 reads thus :- "Disability
pension when admissible-
An officer who is retired from military service on

account of a disability which is attributable to or
aggravated by such service and is assessed at 20 per cent or
over may, on retirement, be awarded a disability pension
consisting of a service element and a disability element in
accordance with the regulations in this section;"
In respect of accidents the following rules will be

observed :- (a)........
(b)........
c A person is also deemed to be ‘on duty’ during the

period of participation in recreation, organised or
permitted by Service Authorities and of travelling in a body
or singly under organised arrangements. A person is also
considered to be ‘on duty’ when proceeding to his leave
station or returning to duty from his leave station at
public expense." (emphasis supplied).
This rule is a deeming provision which provides for

situations under which a person on duty, if he suffers
disability, is entitled to the grant of disability pension.
The last part of this sub-rule provides that a person
incurring disability when proceeding to his leave station or
returning to duty from his leave station at public expense
is also entitled to the grant of disability pension. The
controversy in this case is whether the qualification "at
public expense" found in this rule is so mandatory as to
deprive an army personnel who is travelling to his leave
station or vice versa "on duty", but at his own expense, of
the benefit of disability pension if need arises.
If the expression "at public expense" is to be

construed literally then under the Rules referred to above,
an army personnel incurring a disability during his travel
at his own expense will not be entitled to the benefit of
Rule 6c (supra). The object of the rule, as we see, is to
provide relief to a victim of accident during the travel.
If that be so, the nature of expenditure incurred for the
purpose of such travel is wholly alien to the object of the
rule. It is the duty of the Court to interpret a provision,
especially a beneficial provision, liberally so as to give
it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning which
would negate the very object of the Rule.
In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949 2 All

ER 155), Lord Denning L.J. (as he then was) held :- "When a
defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and
blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the
constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament .
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
and then he must supplement the written word so as to give
"force and life" to the intention of the legislature. A
judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of
the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture
of it, they should have straightened it out ? He must then
do as they would have done. A judge must not alter the
material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should
iron out the creases."
This rule of construction is quoted with approval by

this Court in M Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa (1961 2
SCR 295) and also referred to by Beg, C.J. in Bangalore
Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. R Rajappa (1978 3 SCR 207)
and in Hameedia Hardware Stores, represented by its Partner
S Peer Mohammed v. B Mohan Lal Sowcar (1988 2 SCC 513).
Applying the above rule, we are of the opinion that

the rule makers did not intend to deprive the army personnel
of the benefit of the disability pension solely on the
ground that the cost of journey was not borne by the public
exchequer. If the journey was authorised, it can make no
difference whether the fare for the same came from the
public exchequer or the army personnel himself.
We, therefore, construe the words "at public expense"

used in the relevant part of the rule to mean travel which
is undertaken authorisedly. Even an army personnel entitled
to casual leave may not be entitled to leave his station of
posting without permission. Generally, when authorised to
avail the leave for leaving the station of posting, an army
personnel uses what is known as "travel warrant" which is
issued at public expense, same will not be issued if person
concerned is travelling unauthorisedly. In this context, we
are of the opinion, the words, namely, "at public expense"
are used rather loosely for the purpose of connoting the
necessity of proceeding or returning from such journey
authorisedly. Meaning thereby if such journey is undertaken
even on casual leave but without authorisation to leave the
place of posting, the person concerned will not be entitled
to the benefit of the disability pension since his act of
undertaking the journey would be unauthorised.
Since on facts there is no allegation in this case

that the appellant while travelling to his leave station on
the fateful day was travelling unauthorisedly, we are of the
opinion that he is entitled to the benefit of disability
pension as provided under the Rules.
For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds and

is hereby allowed; the impugned judgments are set aside and
Writ Petition No.4004/91 also stands allowed with all
consequential benefits.

Supreme Court of India Page 1 of 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court of India Page 1 of 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court of India Page 1 of 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://JUDIS.NIC.

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/08/1999

This appeal arises from the Judgment of the Appellate

As per this rule when an army personnel is on casual

An officer who is retired from military service on

In respect of accidents the following rules will be

c A person is also deemed to be ‘on duty’ during the

This rule is a deeming provision which provides for

If the expression "at public expense" is to be

In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949 2 All

This rule of construction is quoted with approval by

Applying the above rule, we are of the opinion that

We, therefore, construe the words "at public expense"

Since on facts there is no allegation in this case

For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds and

You might also like