M/L.14

06.04.2026 Ct. No.07 J.Das IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 14244 of 2023 Arabinda Mondal Vs.

Union of India and Ors.

Ms. Parna Mukherjee … For the petitioner Mr. Souvik Nandy Mrs. Sayani Roy Chowdhury …For the UOI

1. The grievance of the petitioner is primarily directed against the refusal of the respondent authorities in sanctioning disability pension in favour of the petitioner.

2. Briefly, the petitioner was an ex-constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) and was enrolled on 25 December 1999. After completion of approximately 21 years of qualifying service the petitioner retired from service on the ground of physical unfitness on 31 May 2021.

3. It is fairly admitted that the petitioner was in good health in October 2006 when he developed pain in his thigh. Gradually, the petitioner also developed swelling on the posterior aspect of the left thigh which continued to increase in size. At this point of time he had consulted a Unit Hospital from where he was referred to a different hospital in Kolkata and underwent elaborate evaluation.

Subsequently, the petitioner was admitted to hospital on 28 November 2006 and his diagnosis confirmed Myxoidliposarcoma. The petitioner was discharged on 7 December 2006 and was thereafter treated at the Cancer Centre Welfare Home & Research Centre, Thakurpukur, Kolkata. The petitioner underwent further investigation. It is admitted that the petitioner has completed his cycle of chemotherapy and radiation. Since then the petitioner has been regularly checked by the Appropriate Authorities. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension and non-grant of the same is without basis.

4. On behalf of the respondent it is submitted that there has been gross suppression of facts. The petitioner has suppressed that pursuant to an examination by the Medical Board of the respondent authorities, the petitioner had unilaterally and of own volition signed a No Objection Certificate dated 3 May 2021.

5. There has been no appeal nor review of the said decision and the petitioner unequivocally accepted the order and the findings of the respondent authorities. In this background, the entire case made out in the writ petition is belated, an afterthought and has been concocted. In any event, in view of the illness and the Report filed by the Authorities the entire claim of the disability benefit is misconceived and untenable in law. In support of such contention, the petitioner relies on Sukhwant Singh v. Union of India (2012) 12 SCC 228.

6. In Sukhwant Singh v. Union of India (Supra), it has been held as follows:

5. We have heard Mr Bhim Sen Sehgal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and we have also gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has painstakingly examined a conspectus of decisions on the issue of disability pension and having carefully analysed those decisions has summed up the legal position (at p. 67 of the paper book) as under:

“To sum up in our view the following principles should be the guiding factors for deciding the question of attributability or aggravation, where the disability or fatality occurs during the time the individual is on authorised leave of any kind:

(a) The mere fact of a person being on „duty‟ or otherwise, at the place of posting or on leave, is not the sole criteria for deciding attributability of disability/death. There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and present in his unit. It should similarly apply when he is on leave; notwithstanding both being considered as „duty‟.

(b) If the injury suffered by the member of the armed force is the result of an act alien to the sphere of military service or is in no way connected to his being on d