Geeta Dhingra Vs. Kulmohan Singh Dhingra

.....annual leave at the time or at the place when and where the incident transpired. this is so because it is the causal connection which alone is relevant. fourthly, since travel to and fro the place of posting may not appear to everyone as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established.vikramajit sen, j.1. on 12.1.2000 i had ordered that i.p.a 29/1999 be listed before another bench. subsequently, in the following month the present application has been filed seeking a clarification whether by the order dated 5.11.1999 the court had granted interim maintenance for three months or whether the maintenance was to be paid thereafter. since a clarification of my order was prayed for the application has been relisted before me.2. in my view the application is misconceived. no doubt, it is on interim order this is for the reason that detailed arguments are yet to be addressed by the respective counsel for the parties. the operative part of the order is that the respondent is directed to pay a sum of rs. 7,5()0/- per month effected from september, 1999 without prejudice to the contentions to be raised by them. subsequently, on 9.2.2000 s.k. aggarwal, j. had directed that this amount, i.e. rs. 7,500/- be paid every month till further orders. even if there was any clarification required in my order dated november 5, 1999, the controversy was set at rest by the subsequent order dated 9.2.2000. the application is, thereforee, dismissed.i.p.a. 29/1999:3. the matter be listed before s.k. aggarwal, j. who was seized of the matter, after obtaining appropriate orders from the judge, incharge, original side on 14th july, 2000.