HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Decided on 30.01.2026 ****

Dhoop Singh ... Petitioner VS.

Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Prajwal Chauhan, Central Govt. Counsel ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant disability and revised pension as per 6^th Pay Commission and GPAIS dues pending with the respondents with disability element of disability pension w.e.f. 01.01.2009 for life and benefits of rounding off the disability element while seeking compensation for not releasing the disability and revised pension and GPAIS along with consequential benefits as per Rules.

(2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined CRPF as Constable and after his induction in service, he was allowed to undergo basic CRPF training as a recruit after being examined to be medically and physically fit at the time of his enrolment in service. He further submits that the petitioner underwent the initial rigorous training phase of "full of stress and strain" before being granted 30 days' leave, during which on 16.02.2008 he suffered sudden leg pain leading to admission at GB Pant Hospital, diagnosis of dry gangrene, and as such, he was referred to PGIMS Rohtak which resulted in amputation of left thigh on 27.02.2008 and was ultimately discharged on

02.03.2008 as per medical documents (Annexures P1 to P3).

(3). It is argued that Release Medical Board (RMB) dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure P3) assessed 80% permanent disability for life, however, such a disability has been held to be not attributable to or aggravated by service. It is further averred that the RMB has not given any reason that the disease could not have been detected on medical examination prior to acceptance for service and as such, non-consideration of the petitioner’s claim for disability pension/GPAIS is against the Rule 9 and Appendix 'B' of Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 2002, thereby offending settled law that fitness at entry followed by invalidment entitles disability pension even for brief service, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Indian Army Benevolent Fund v.

Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 66 (4). On the other hand, Mr. Prajwal Chauhan, Central Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has filed reply dated 06.08.2024 wherein it has been averred that the ailment dry gangrene leading to amputation of left leg of the petitioner on 27.02.2008 had surfaced during his 30-day earned leave period w.e.f. 13.02.2008 to 13.03.2008 while posted at 96 Bn CRPF, Signal Platoon of 4 Signal Bn. He submits that a Court of Inquiry was ordered on 22.10.2008 and as per its findings dated 16.02.2009 by Commandant, 4th Signal Bn, it has emerged that the petitioner sought treatment at his own at PGIMS Rohtak which is near to his hometown after having admitted initially at GB Pant Hospital, Delhi and as such, there is no attributable service liability or disability in action on the part of the respondents.

(5). He further urged that the incidents occurring during leave, preclude GPAIS admissibility under Chapter-11 of CRPF Booklet on Welfare Schemes as nobody except the petitioner is responsible for his amputation of his left leg inasmuch as he had availed 120 days' commuted leave for treatment/rest and after his surgery, he sought voluntary retirement on 08.07.2008 which the respondents accepted w.e.f. 01.11.2008 and all eligible retiral benefits were paid to him as per rules. He relied upon Rule 38 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, “if any part of the body of a govt. employee is amputated due to an incident occurring during the discharge of govt. duty, he will be eligible for disability/invalid pension”, but the petitioner never invalidated or discharged