Discharged Soldier Suffers In Silence | Delhi High Court Grants Disability Pension To BSF Constable With Bipolar Disorder | Board Ignored Service Stress And Gave No Reason For Denial
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held that the petitioner, who was invalidated from service in the Border Security Force (BSF) due to psychiatric illness, is entitled to disability pension. The Court directed the respondents to grant disability pension at the assessed rate of 65%, rounded off to 75%, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Court concluded that in the absence of any prior medical history and with no reasons recorded by the Medical Board denying attributability or aggravation due to service, the petitioner’s condition must be presumed to be service-related.
The Bench noted that the petitioner was found fit at the time of enrolment and developed the psychiatric condition during active service. Consequently, the respondents were directed to compute and release the disability pension within two months from the date of judgment. The Court further recorded that the benefit of doubt in such matters should be extended more liberally to personnel serving in field conditions.
The petitioner was enrolled in the BSF as a Constable (GD) in 1990, after clearing a comprehensive medical examination. He was initially posted at the 146th Battalion in Chuda Chandpur, Manipur. Notably, during his tenure, the petitioner earned a Gold Medal in Shooting for his Battalion. Later, while posted at Bhuj, Gujarat, the petitioner experienced health issues due to stress and was diagnosed with depression. He received treatment at the Psychiatric Hospital in Bhuj, the Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad, and the Institute of Human Behaviours and Allied Sciences, Delhi.
The petitioner requested a transfer to Delhi for better access to medical treatment. Initially denied, his request was eventually granted, and he was examined by a Medical Board in Delhi. The Board temporarily downgraded his Medical Category from 'AYE' to 'CEE' for six months beginning 20.01.2000. After treatment, he resumed duties at the 42nd Battalion, Abohar, Punjab, on 05.04.2002.
In 2003, an incident occurred involving the petitioner and the family of a senior officer. According to the petitioner, he was slapped by the officer's wife after a delay in dropping their child. The petitioner alleged retaliation through manipulation of his medical evaluation. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him for alleged tampering with an electric meter, but those were withdrawn in 2004.
A subsequent medical evaluation conducted at the BSF Hospital, Calcutta, on 31.01.2004 diagnosed the petitioner with Bipolar Affective Disorder. He was advised to take on light duties. Medical Boards continued to evaluate his condition over the years, and on 23.02.2011, a Board declared him unfit for continued service under Rule 25 of the BSF Rules, 1969.
Following a representation by the petitioner on 18.07.2011, a Review Medical Board convened on 16.11.2011 at CH Hospital, Jodhpur, upheld the earlier findings. As a result, he was retired from service with effect from 31.12.2011, with pensionary benefits under Rule 25 of the BSF Rules. However, he was denied the disability element of pension.
The petitioner argued that his condition was attributable to or aggravated by service. He pointed out that he had no history of psychiatric illness prior to enrolment and that the stress of deployment contributed to the disorder. He relied on precedents including Union of India & Anr. v. Rajbir Singh, Neeraj Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., and Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Anr. to assert his entitlement to disability pension.
The respondents contested the maintainability of the petition, citing lack of territorial jurisdiction and delay. They further argued that the Medical Board clearly concluded that the illness was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service.
The petitioner rebutted these arguments, relying on M.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. and Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh to submit that non-payment of pension was a continuing wrong. He further stated that since part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and the respondents’ headquarters were located there, the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction.
The Court considered the preliminary objections on delay and jurisdiction. Referring to Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak v. Municipal Corpn., Bhavnagar, the Bench recorded: "At the same time, the law recognises a 'continuing' cause of action which may give rise to a 'recurring' cause of action as in the case of salary or pension..." The Court also cited Tarsem Singh, noting that relief may still be granted despite delay in cases involving pay or pension.
On jurisdiction, the Court held that since a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and the petition had been pending for over eight years, it would be unjust to dismiss it on territorial grounds.
Turning to the merits, the Court observed: "The petitioner has been consistently found to be suffering from 'Bipolar Affective Disorder'. Therefore, no infirmity can be found in the decision of the respondents to Board Out the petitioner from service." However, it questioned the reasoning behind the denial of disability pension.
The Court noted: "The Medical Board has not given any finding regarding the causal effect of the petitioner’s disability with his service, but has merely observed that on account of his disability, he is 'Unfit' to be retained in the Force service."
Further, the judgment recorded: "It was, therefore, for the respondents to establish that there was no causal effect with the disability and service condition of the petitioner, but it failed to provide any reason for declaring the case of the petitioner as neither attributable to nor aggravated by his service condition."
Quoting Rule 2 of the Guidelines under the CCS (EOP) Rules, the Court recorded: "In deciding on the issue of entitlement, all the evidence (both direct and circumstantial) will be taken into account and the benefit of reasonable doubt will be given to the claimant. This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimant in field service cases."
The Bench relied on the Calcutta High Court decision in Union of India v. Rajat Kumar Ghosh, which categorised Bipolar Affective Disorder under Psychosis as per Schedule 1-A of the CCS (EOP) Rules. "Psychiatric disorders... include schizophrenia and schizophreniform disorder, affective (mood) disorders, including severe depression, and severe depression or mania in bipolar disorder (manic depression)."
The Court held: "In the absence of any reasons given by the Medical Board regarding the attributability or aggravation of the petitioner's disability... we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner's disability has to be treated as a result of his service conditions."
The Court issued the following directions:
"We direct the respondents to grant disability pension to the petitioner by taking his disability at 65% rounded off to 75%, and accordingly, release the pensionary benefits to him within a period of two months from the date of this order, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum."
The Bench also held that the broad-banding benefit under Rule 8(3) of the CCS (EOP) Rules is applicable, which provides that disability between 50% and 75% shall be reckoned as 75% for the purpose of pension computation.
"The Review Medical Board has assessed the petitioner’s disability at 65%. From the above-mentioned Rule, it emerges that the benefit of rounding off for disability pension is applicable to Force personnel who have been discharged, retired, or superannuated with a disability that is held to be attributable to, or aggravated by, military service."
With this, the petition was allowed in terms stated above.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Ms. Harshita Verma, Mr. Omkar Hemanth, Ms. Siddhi Nagwekar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPC with Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Mr. Yash Narain, Advocates
Case Title: Manvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4962-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 11442/2016
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur
[Read/Download order]
