Q: Elaborate the citation of Union of India (UOI) and Ors Vs. Surendra Pandey, 18.09.2014 ?

Ans: 

Union of India (UOI) and Ors Vs. Surendra Pandey, 18.09.2014 .

The Respondent on authorised leave started his homeward journey by train. While boarding a bus from Hajipur to join his family in Patna he met with an accident that resulted in a disability, assessed at 20% by the Medical Board concerned. A Court of Inquiry recorded a finding that the accident and the resultant injury suffered by the Respondent were not attributable to military service. The claim for payment of disability pension was declined by the Appellants, according to whom the Respondent was authorised to travel upto Gopalganj-his home station. Any accident involving the Respondent at Hajipur was in no way related to military service or the time requisite for completing the homeward journey which the Respondent was authorised to undertake. The Respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the disability was attributable to military service as the Respondent was on annual leave, hence deemed to be on duty at the time the same was suffered. The Tribunal set aside the orders passed by the Appellants refusing pension and issued directions for payment of the dues. Hence, the present appeal assailing the correctness of the order of the Tribunal.

The honourable Supreme Court held while dismissing the appeal : 

1.An appeal under the provisions of the Act is maintainable only in case the same involves a substantial question of law of general/public importance/interest which does not appear to be arising in this case. The Tribunal has taken the view that any accident involving a person serving the army while he is on annual leave, is deemed to be attributable to military service. That proposition appears to us to be rather broadly stated.

2.The test of what was "reasonably incidental" to employment, may be extended even to cases while an employee is sent on an errand by the employer outside the factory premises. But in such cases, it must be shown that he was doing something incidental to his employment. 

3.One of the incidents of the military service which the Respondent was rendering in the Army was his remaining away from his family for long intervals on account of the nature of the duties enjoined upon him in larger national interests. When authorised to proceed on an annual leave of two months that incident would extend to his obligation to join his family for such moral and material support as the family would require of him and as would be expected of a disciplined soldier serving in the armed forces.

4.There is a reasonable nexus and causal connection between the disability and the military service of the Respondent at the relevant time. The proximity in point of time between the homeward journey and the date when he met with the accident as also the distance between the place from where the journey was started and the place to which he was travelling would give rise to a reasonable inference that the authorised journey had not ended when he met with the incident. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, no matter for reasons different from those recorded by the Tribunal. This appeal accordingly fails and is, hereby, dismissed.