JUDGMENT :

D.P. Choudhury, J.

Challenge has been made to the inaction of the opposite parties in not granting disability pension to the petitioner although he has been declared permanently incapacitated with 70% disability.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix leading to the petitioner’s case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Cook in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter called as “CRPF”) and subsequently he fell ill and kept under medical supervision for a long time. While he was discharged from CRPF Base/Group Hospital BH-2, he was discharged with a declaration that he was not fit for any active combat duty and was declared permanently unfit. Accordingly, the Chief Medical Officer, CRPF Base Hospital, Hyderabad recommended for invalid retirement of the petitioner.

3. Be it stated, the Additional DIGP, CRPF, Bhubaneswar, vide memo dated 3.6.2004 declared the petitioner completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the Department because of his chronic psychiatric illness. However, an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to make any representation within a period of one month from the date when he was proposed to be invalidated from the service under the provision of Article 455 of CSR Volume-I.

4. It is averred that the petitioner had been examined by Board of Medical Officers and was completely permanently incapacitated for further service with effect from 26.5.2004. The petitioner was suffering from chronic psychiatric illness “Schizophrenia” and the percentage of disability was 70%. So, the Additional DIGP declared the petitioner invalidated with effect from 2.7.2004 as per Rule-38 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The petitioner applied for the disability pension on 20.6.2008 and on 29.7.2008, Additional DIGP, Group Centre, CRPF, Bhubaneswar intimated the petitioner that his disability is not attributable to Government service and hence, he was not entitled to disability pension. But the wife of the petitioner claimed that mental disorder of her husband was due to irregular and hazardous duties undertaken by the petitioner.

5. It is further averred that on 4.12.2008, the wife of the petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary to Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs stating therein that her husband was not suffering from Schizophrenia when he was leading happy conjugal life and the said disease was caused mainly due to the irregular and hazardous duties being undertaken by the petitioner.

6. The opposite parties 2 to 4 turned down the plea of the wife of the petitioner and reiterated that the disease of Schizophrenia of the petitioner was not attributable to the Government service and the persons suffering from the aforesaid disease are not eligible for sanction of disability pension.

7. On 19.2.2009, the wife of the petitioner made another representation to I.G. Police, CRPF Eastern Sector, Kolkata reiterating her previous claim and requested the concerned authority to examine her husband by Review Medical Board. According to her, her husband was suffering from mental depression or disorder being treated at Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar from 7.12.2002 to 17.12.2002, subsequently being treated at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and finally he was under the treatment of CRPF Base Hospital, Hyderabad from 31.12.2002 to 3.2.2004. The wife of the petitioner had claimed that under all these medical reports, the disease was not diagnosized to be Schizophrenia but the mental disorder occurred only due to the nature of duty and responsibility bestowed on him. Thereafter, the above authority rejected the prayer of the petitioner and his wife by reiterating the stand earlier taken. The petitioner inter alia alleged that said rejection of the prayer is illegal, improper and arbitrary. So, the petitioner prayed to direct the opposite parties to grant disability pension from the date of discharge from service till the actual payment.

8. Per contra, the opposite p