'Rejection Of Disability Pension Should Be Based On Reasoned Order ': Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that since the Petitioner's disabilities arose while he was in service, the possibility of the disabilities having arisen due to being in service could not be ruled out. The Bench further held that the Respondents did not explain as to why they did not consider the opinion of the Medical Board in not granting the disability element of pension to the petitioner and failed to prove the condition for non-entitlement of the Disability Pension to the petitioner. Background The Petitioner joined the Indian Coast Guard and while he was serving as an Uttam Navik. He suffered from two disabilities. The first ability being “Recurrent Depressive Disorder” started on 15.11.2009 and second disability being “Prolapsed, herniated, or extruded intervertebral disc” started on 09.12.2006. On 17.06.2013, the Medical Board assessed the petitioner's first disability at 40% for life, being neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. The second ability was assessed as 20% for life and attributable to service by the Medical Board. The Composite Assessment for both the disabilities was assessed at 50% for life. The Medical Board recommended that the Petitioner be granted Disability Pension but later the Pension Sanctioning Authority passed an order on 21.03.2014 granting the Petitioner only Invalid Pension (as per Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972). Having served for 11 years, the Petitioner was invalidated out of service on 27.08.2013. The Petitioner claimed to be entitled to Disability Pension but the Respondents informed him that he would only be granted Invalid Pension. Later he sent a legal notice cum representation/appeal dated 17.08.2018 to the Respondents and on 29.11.2018, the Coast Guard, Headquarters rejected the Petitioner's claim for Disability Pension. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner approached the High Court. Contentions of the Petitioner: The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that at the time of recruitment, the Petitioner was physically and mentally fit and the first disability developed after serving for 7 years in the Force, indicating that there was no pre-existing disease. Emphasizing that serving in the Armed Forces was stressful and strenuous, the Counsel stated that the Petitioner was posted in Port Blair, a hard area, just before developing the first disability in 2009. Mentioning “Guidelines for Conceding Attributability of Disablement or Death to Government Service” of the CCS(EOP) Rules, the Counsel stated that the Medical Board should have held the first disability as attributable to service since the Petitioner developed it during his active service. It was submitted that the Letter denying Disability Pension to the Petitioner stated that he was not entitled to the same as the diseases he suffered from were not included in Schedule 1-A of the CCS (EOP) Rules. However, the second disability was mentioned in Paragraph A at SI No. (xiv) of Schedule 1-A and the first disability was mentioned in Paragraph B at SI No. (i) of the same Schedule, the Counsel submitted. The Counsel further argued that names of all the diseases could not be mentioned in the schedule and therefore certain terms were interchangeably used, citing the example of the Lumbago disease as mentioned in the schedule which was an alternative name for lower back pain. Similarly, Recurrent Depressive Disorder which is a mental disorder was not specifically mentioned in the Schedule, however, it was mentioned under Psychosis and Psychoneurosis of the Schedule. The Counsel further stated that Invalid Pension was granted in cases where disability/disease could neither be attributed to nor aggravated by service with a qualifying service of 10 years or more but in the Petitioner's case, the second disability was attributable to service and therefore he was entitled to claim Disability Pension. The Counsel relied on several judgments including Abhai Singh vs Border Security Force, W.P. (C) No. 2059/2007, Ram Narain vs Union of India and others, CW(P) No. 16319/2012 and Dharamvir Singh vs Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4949 of 2013, (2013) AIR SCW 4236 to justify his contentions. Contentions of the Respondent: The Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner was invalidated from service due to his first ability which was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. Citing Rule 3-A of the CCS(EOP) Rules, it was submitted that Disability Pension was not sanctioned to the petitioner as per these Rules. Moreover, as per the analysis made by the sanctioning authority, the Petitioner's case was not covered under these Rules, the Counsel submitted. The Second disability was considered to be attributable to service by the Medical Board but the Petitioner was invalidated from service because of the first...

'Rejection Of Disability Pension Should Be Based On Reasoned Order ': Delhi High Court

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags