Delhi High Court | Centre Directed to Grant Disability Compensation Under Rule 9(3) of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules to BSF DIG Suffering 42% Hearing Loss from 2001 IED Blast
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla has granted disability compensation to a man who superannuated as a Deputy Inspector General of the Border Security Force, for 42% hearing loss sustained in a 2001 IED blast in Jammu and Kashmir. Invoking Rule 9(3) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, the Court directed release of the lump-sum amount with 9% annual interest from 2017, questioning why authorities failed to act despite repeated representations by Sharma, and ordered payment within two weeks.
The petitioner, a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of the Border Security Force (BSF), sustained multiple splinter injuries, including damage to his ears, in an improvised explosive device (IED) blast at Bandipore, Jammu and Kashmir, on 23 April 2001 while on duty. Initial treatment was provided at the Sector Hospital, Bandipore, followed by the BSF Kashmir Frontier Hospital in Srinagar, and subsequently at AIIMS, New Delhi. On 9 May 2001, AIIMS diagnosed him with bilateral moderate mixed hearing loss, and in 2003, specialists advised him to avoid humid environments due to vulnerability to ear infections.
Between 2005 and 2007, Sharma made multiple representations to BSF authorities requesting postings in less humid areas, citing medical advice. Despite this, he was posted to regions with high humidity, such as Tripura, where his ear condition reportedly deteriorated further. His requests were formally forwarded but not acted upon.
In May 2016, he was referred for medical examination and later placed in a lower medical category. A Medical Board on 26 May 2017 concluded that Sharma suffered “effects of IED blast injury resulting in mild to moderate bilateral hearing loss,” assessed at 42% disability, permanent in nature, and attributable to conditions of service. A Suitability Certificate dated 27 September 2017 confirmed his employability within certain limitations.
Based on these findings, the Inspector General, BSF, recommended disability compensation in August 2017 under Rule 9(4) (later renumbered Rule 9(3)) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. The proposal calculated a capitalized value of Rs. 74,33,850, and certificates confirmed the injury was attributable to government service. Communications forwarding the proposal were issued in 2018 for further processing.
However, a fresh Staff Court of Inquiry later rejected the claim as time-barred under Rule 6 of the CCS (EOP) Rules, which excludes injuries sustained more than five years before the date of application. The Union of India relied on this provision, contending that the claim could not be entertained, and also argued that the petitioner was retained in service without disclosure of his disability during annual medical examinations.
The petitioner countered that his disability was clearly attributable to the 2001 blast, supported by medical records, and that Rule 9(3) entitled him to compensation upon retirement despite continued service.
The Bench recorded: “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.” The Court noted the medical proceedings of May 2017 and the Suitability Certificate of September 2017 as conclusive evidence.
Addressing the respondents’ submissions, the Court stated: “The less said about such a submission, the better.” The Bench described the assertion that the petitioner had failed to disclose his disability as directly contrary to documents. The Court cited AIIMS records from May 2001, which identified moderate mixed bilateral hearing loss, and specialist advice from November 2003 warning against humid postings.
The judgment recorded: “We deem it appropriate to reproduce these representations in extenso,” referring to letters from the petitioner in 2005, 2006, and 2007 requesting relief on medical grounds. The Court stated: “The submission, clearly, is directly contrary to the documents on record.”
The Bench further observed: “The manner in which the petitioner’s claim has been dealt with is a matter of concern. We do not wish to second guess the reason as to why the petitioner, who was a war veteran who had suffered 42% hearing loss attributable to an injury borne by him on the warfront in 2001, has had to wait for 24 years as on date for obtaining his entitlement.”
On reliance on Rule 6, the Court stated: “Rule 6, in our view, cannot apply in a case which falls within the meaning of Rule 9(3) of the CCS (EOP) Rules.” It held that Rule 9(3) governs cases where government servants are retained despite disablement, as in the present case. The Court observed: “The petitioner cannot be expected to approach the respondents with a begging bowl, asking for his due entitlement under the Rules.”
The Bench further recorded: “The reliance, by respondents on Rule 6 of the CCS (EOP) Rules cannot, therefore, be regarded as wholesome.”
The Court directed: “We hold the petitioner to be entitled to disability compensation in terms of Rule 9(3) of the CCS (EOP) Rules.” The Bench directed: “The said compensation shall be released to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of issuance of the Suitability Certificate dated 27 September 2017, with interest from that date @ 9% p.a. till the date when the disability compensation is released to the petitioner.”
“We direct that the aforesaid amounts be released to the petitioner positively within two weeks from today.” While noting the prolonged delay, the Court remarked: “Given the manner in which the petitioner has had to suffer despite the injury that he bore in 2001, we would have been inclined to award punitive costs in this case. However, as we have awarded interest on the disability compensation granted by us, we refrain from doing so.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ankur Vyas and Ms. Garima Joshi, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Senior Panel Counsel, with Mr. Ribhav Pandey, Advocate.
Case Title: Ashvini Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8118-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 1855/2023
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla
