Disability Attributable To Service, Authorities Cannot Contradict Medical Proof, Delhi High Court Grants Disability Pension

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur while allowing a Petition of the Petitioner seeking disability pension held that in absence of reasons as to how the disability arose, it could be presumed that in cases where the personnel while being appointed to the post was declared fit, the disability having arisen later could be attributable to or aggravated by service. Background The Petitioner was a Constable/Driver in the CRPF and he joined the said post on 05.04.1995. At the time of his selection and appointment, his medical examination was conducted exhaustively. After almost four years of joining the services in 52nd Battalion, Imphal, he noticed redness in his left eye which was diagnosed as 'Corneal Ulcer'. The Petitioner was treated for the disease and later in the year 2003, he was declared 'fit' for service by a Department Rehabilitation Board. The DRB however also suggested that the Petitioner be assigned light duties. It was opined that he should come before the next DRB for further checkup. Despite the opinion of the DRB stating that the Petitioner was fit to serve his duties, an order was issued on 02.02.2010 based on the opinion of a Board of Medical Officers at Composite Hospital, CRPF, New Delhi declaring the Petitioner 'completely and permanently incapacitated for service of any kind' in the CRPF owing to 'Corneal Opacity with failed penetrating keratoplasty left eye'. The Petitioner was asked to explain as to why the Respondents should not invalidate him from service, in reply to which, he requested for five more years till the completion of twenty years as he had developed a 'Corneal Ulcer' during his service. His request was rejected and he was finally invalidated from service on 21.04.2010. Subsequently he requested for grant of Disability Pension but there was no response to it from the concerned authorities. Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Court. Contentions of the Petitioner: Emphasizing that the Petitioner was fit and healthy when he joined the services initially, the Counsel for the Petitioner stated that it was wrong on part of the Respondents to deny granting the Petitioner Disability Pension. The Counsel stated that since the Petitioner joined the services in a healthy state, the disability that arose during his services would be attributable to service. It was stated that the rejection of the Petitioner's request was against the principles of natural justice. Relying on Mohan Lal vs Union of India & Anr. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11948 and Manvir Singh vs Union of India, the Counsel added that since the Respondents had cited no reasons for the Petitioner's disability, it could be assumed that the same had arisen in relation to the Petitioner's duties and therefore the disability was attributable to or aggravated by service. Stating that in absence of the Medical Board citing reasons as to how the disability occurred, the Counsel contended that in such a situation, the disability would presumably be attributable to or aggravated by service. To justify the contentions made, the Counsel relied on judgments including State of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (2013) 12 SCC 210, Union of India & Anr. vs Rajbir Singh (2015) 12 SCC 264 and Prahallad Mohanty vs Union of India & Ors. Contentions of the Respondents: The Counsel for the Respondents argued that the Respondents were bound to invalidate the Petitioner from service because despite giving the Petitioner several opportunities to seek treatment of the disability, his condition did not improve. It was further argued that although the Petitioner was granted invalidation pension as per the Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, he could not be granted disability pension under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules because his disability had not arisen due to environment conditions or his service. Findings of the Court: The Court perused the record including the observations made by the DRB on 06.03.2009, Medical Board's proceeding dated 02.02.2010 and the Invalidation Order of the petitioner dated 20.04.2010. Referring to the observations made by the DRB, the Bench held that the Respondents had assigned no reasons as to whether the disability of the petitioner was attributable to or aggravated by Service. It accepted the argument of the Counsel for the Petitioner that as per law, the petitioner could not be denied the grant of Disability Pension in case no reasons were recorded by the Medical Board in relation to the attributability of the disease to service. The Court referred to Rule 2 of Guidelines for Conceding Attributability of Disablement or Death to Government Service of Central Civil Service (Extraordinary Pension) Rules as per which the petitioner was to be given benefit of reasonable doubt and it was to be done liberally if the personnel was in...

Disability Attributable To Service, Authorities Cannot Contradict Medical Proof, Delhi High Court Grants Disability Pension

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags