The court ruled that the petitioner is entitled to disability compensation under Rule 9(3) despite objections on time-bar, emphasizing entitlement based on continuous service post-injury.

JUDGMENT(ORAL)

11.09.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. On 10 September 2024, a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court recorded as under:

“1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who has superannuated from the Border Security Force (BSF) as a Deputy Inspector General (DIG), has approached this Court assailing the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 rejecting his claim for disability compensation, in lieu of disability pension for the disability from which he is suffering on account of the injury suffered by him in an IED blast in Jammu and Kashmir on 23.04.2001.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s claim has been erroneously rejected by the respondents under Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 (“Rules”), without appreciating the fact that despite the disability from which the petitioner has been suffering on account of the injury suffered by him in April, 2001, he was retained in service and was, therefore, entitled to receive disability compensation at the time of his discharge from service, for which purpose he relies on Rule 9(4) of the Rules. He contends that the respondents are opposing the petitioner’s claim not only on the ground of the same being barred under Rule 6 but have also taken a plea that there is no record at this stage to show that the injury suffered by the petitioner in 2001, was the cause of his disability.

3. Having perused the proceedings of the Medical Board held on 03.07.2017, we find absolutely no merit in the respondents’ aforesaid plea as we find that the Medical Board clearly records that the injury suffered by the petitioner in 2001 was the cause of his present disability. We have, therefore, put to learned counsel for the respondents as to why the petitioner’s claim ought not to be allowed under Rule 9(4).

4. When faced with this query, he prays for time to obtain instructions as to why the petitioner’s claim would not be covered under Rule 9(4).

5. List on 25.09.2024.”

2. The hearing today has taken place in terms of the aforesaid order dated 10 September 2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

3. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to the Medical Board proceedings dated 26 May 2017, which had been seen by the Division Bench on 10 September 2024. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the record of the proceedings, thus:

“01 Findings by the board in brief (if different from the finding mentioned in Part-I):

(As per documents attached, Officer sustained injury on 23.04.2001 due to IED blast but no placed under LMC till 08.11.2016 and appeared before disability /re-categorization board on 26.05.2017.)

02 Opinion of the board:

The board having examined IRLA NO. 18632231 Shri Ashvini Kumar Sharma DIG/PSO (IRLA NO, Name, Rank) of Ftr IIQ Rajasthan (Unit/IIQ) arc of the opinion that he is suffering from “Effects of I.E.D, [Improvised Explosive Device] blast injury resulting in Mild to Moderate Bilateral Hearing Loss" and is considered unfit to remain in medical category SHAPE-I