Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, SHALINDER KAUR, JJ.
Kuldeep Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Director General CRPF And Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 3227 of 2021
Decided on : 07-01-2025
(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Disability Pension - Petitioner invalidated from service due to 40% disability arising from service-related ailment - Respondents failed to provide reasons attributing disability to service - Court held that absence of reasons leads to presumption of service-related disability - Disability pension granted, rounded off to 50%. (Paras 17, 20, 22)
(B) Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1972 - Guidelines for attributability of disablement - Benefit of reasonable doubt to be given liberally to claimants in field service cases. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Constable/Driver in CRPF, suffered a corneal ulcer leading to 40% disability and was invalidated from service without proper attribution of disability to service.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s disability was attributable to service and directed the grant of Disability Pension rounded off to 50%.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to Disability Pension and if the disability is attributable to service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in the absence of reasons from the Medical Board or the Invalidation Order, disability must be presumed to be service-related, affirming the principle of liberal interpretation in favor of the claimant.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him Disability Pension on the basis of the Medical Board’s finding dated 02.02.2010, which had recorded that he was suffering from 40% disability.
2. Before we proceed to consider the prayer made, first a brief factual history leading to the filing of the present petition.
3. The petitioner joined the CRPF as a Constable/Driver on 05.04.1995, and was subjected to a thorough medical examination atthe time of his selection and appointment. In the year 1999, whilst the petitioner was posted with the 52 nd Battalion, Imphal, all of a sudden, he started experiencing redness in his left eye. On being referred to the GC Imphal, it was found that he was suffe ring from a ‘Corneal Ulcer’ and was given treatment for the same.
4. Thereafter, in the year 2003, a Department Rehabilitation Board (DRB) had found the petitioner ‘fit’ to continue in service and opined that he should only be assigned light duties and that he should appear before the next DRB. However, vide the order dated 02.02.2010, the petitioner was declared completely and permanently incapacitated for service of any kind in the CRPF as a Combatant due to "Corneal Opacity with failed penetrating keratoplasty left eye" as opined by a Board of Medical Officers held at Composite Hospital, CRPF, New Delhi. The petitioner was thereafter declared 40% disabled by the Director (Medical) Dte. Genl. CRPF vide the letter dated 17.02.2010.
5. The respondents issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner on 15.03.2010, with a direction therein to show cause as to why he should not be invalidated out of service. The petitioner duly replied to the said Notice and requested that he be allowed to serve in the Force for five more years, so as to complete 20 years of service, as he had suffered from a ‘Corneal Ulcer’ during his service with the CRPF. To the petitioner’s dismay, th e said request was rejected by the respondents vide the order dated 20.04.2010 and consequently, the petitioner was invalidated out of service from 21.04.2010.
6. Upon his invalidation from service, the petitioner sent multiple written requests, requesting that he be granted Disability Pension, however, to no avail. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court, seeking a redressal of his grievance.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents of not granting the petitioner Disability Pension is completely erroneous as at the time of the petitioner joining service, he was completely healthy and, therefore, his disability is clearly attributable to service. The action of the respondents in withholding the legitimate dues of the petitioner is completely malafide and violative of the principles of natural justice.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no reasons for the petitioner’s disability have been cited by the respondents, it is to be presumed that the petitioner’s disability was attributable to or aggravated by his service with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Mohan Lal vs Union of India & Anr., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11948, and judgment dated 02.12.2024 in W.P. (C) 11442/2016 titled Manvir Singh vs. Union of India.
9. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 210; Union of India & Anr. vs. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 12 SCC 264 and the decision dated 05.10.2016 of the Orissa High Court in W.P. (C) 28470/2013 titled Prahallad Mohanty vs Union of India & Ors., while contending that in the absence of any reasons recorded by the Medical Board, the disability is presumed to have been attributable to or aggravated by service. The learned counsel, while referring to the aforementio
The absence of attribution of disability to service by the Medical Board leads to a presumption of service-related disability, warranting the grant of Disability Pension.
Court emphasized that disability not attributable to service must be substantiated by evidence, and any ambiguity favors the claimant in pension entitlement.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between disability pension and invalid pension under the CCS Pension Rules, emphasizing the eligibility criteria and the impact ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the continuing wrongs and recurring wrongs principle to service law disputes, along with the entitlement to disability pension u....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a member of the armed forces to disability pension under the Central Civil Service (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, emphasizing t....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to disability pension for a medical condition arising during service and aggravated by it, as well as the burden of proof on the....
Disability pension claims must be presumed service-related if not recorded at enlistment, with the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate otherwise.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
