Sushil Kumar Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- labour & services disability pension: [vikramajit sen, sanjiv khanna & s.l.bhayana,jj] army act (46 of 1950), section 192 & pension regulations for the army (1961), regulation. 173 claimant was on casual leave sustained injury which contributed to invalidation for military service claim for disability pension held, to claim disability pension by military personnel it requires to be established that the injury or fatality suffered by the concerned claimant bears a causal connection with military service. secondly, if this obligation exists so far as discharge from the armed force on the opinion of a medical board the obligation and responsibility a fortiori exists so far as injuries and fatalities suffered during casual leave are concerned. thirdly, as a natural corollary it is irrelevant whether the concerned personnel was on causal or 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. - 20,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer.manmohan sarin, j.1. learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no allegations have been made by the father end brother of the deceased although some allegations of demanding 'dowry' and 'ill-treatment' have been made against the petitioner by the mother of deceased. there is an infant girl of seven months old who is to be looked after also. learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to diary nothings left by the deceased.2. having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. in the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs.20,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer.the petitioner shall join and co-operate with the investigation and will not leave nct of delhi without the leave of the trial court.