Entitlement to disability compensation requires retention in service despite disability; voluntary retirement negates the claim.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner disability compensation as per Golden Jubilee Seema Prahari Kalyan Kavach and Disability lumpsum compensation in lieu of disability pension along with interest for the period of delay.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was serving as Head Constable in BSF and was posted on border post Jagdish. It is stated that on 09.04.2015, while discharging his duties, the petitioner’s right ankle got injured. Thereafter, he was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Ferozpur wherein he was diagnosed with a Bimalleolar fracture of the right ankle. It is stated that the petitioner underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for the said

fracture. It is further stated that during his leave period at his hometown, petitioner consulted Civil Hospital, Rewari, where a board of medical officers was constituted, comprising of a Civil Surgeon, Orthopaedic Surgeon and Senior Medical Officer who assessed the petitioner’s disability at 11% vide Certificate No. 348 dated 19.04.2017.

3. Thereafter, a Court of Inquiry1 was convened to investigate the circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s injury. As per the findings of the COI, the petitioner’s injury was held to be attributable to his duty. It was also directed in COI that financial assistance, as permissible under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 19392, be extended to the petitioner. It was further directed that a Medical Board be constituted again to ascertain the extent of disability and the petitioner’s current medical category.

1 “COI”, hereinafter

2 “CCS (EOP) Rules”, hereinafter

4. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, BSF Medical Board convened on 30.07.2018 and had placed the petitioner in low medical category with 31.83% disability. The Board recorded that the petitioner was suffering from “Arthrodesis Rt ankle following malunited right Pott’s fracture”. The Board further observed that the petitioner was fit for sedentary duties.

5. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner availed voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.07.2018. Further, the petitioner had filed a claim for disability compensation in lieu of disability pension and under the Beema Yojana.

6. Subsequently, the petitioner’s case for disability compensation was prepared and forwarded to the Frontier Headquarters, BSF, Gujarat, for appropriate orders. However, by communication dated 27.05.2019, the said authority returned the proposal, seeking an explanation for the increase in assessed disability from 11% to 31.83%. It was further directed that, prior to approval, the petitioner be examined by a Medical Board headed by the Chief Medical Officer (SG), Gujarat Frontier, along with two other doctors, and that the proposal be resubmitted with the Board’s fresh findings clarifying the basis for the increase, the petitioner’s current medical category, and the supporting documentation.

7. In light of the abovementioned, it is stated that the case of the petitioner was re-examined and it was opined that the petitioner’s disability assessed at 31.83% could be considered for disability compensation. Hence, the proposal was re-submitted. However, the Directorate General, BSF, rejected the proposal as devoid of merit, citing sub-Rule 4 of Rule 48A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 19723 and Section 3 (2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 4, of which t