12 June 2025 Unpaid salary/bonus/gratuity >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

A recent court ruling has highlighted the critical issue of disability pension for Border Security Force (BSF) personnel, particularly when their medical conditions emerge during active service. The case involved a BSF Constable, who, after years of dedicated service, was declared "unfit" and retired with pensionary benefits under Rule 25 of the BSF Rules, 1969. The core of the dispute lay in whether his "Bipolar Affective Disorder" was attributable to or aggravated by his service, thereby entitling him to a disability pension.

The petitioner joined the BSF in 1990 as a Constable (GD) and was medically fit at the time of his enlistment. He even earned a Gold Medal in Shooting for his Battalion. However, due to the inherent stress and strain of duty, he later developed depression and underwent treatment at various hospitals. Despite his efforts to seek transfer to Delhi for continued treatment, which was initially denied, he was eventually examined by a Medical Board in Delhi in 2000, where his medical category was temporarily reduced due to depression.

After successful treatment, he rejoined duty in 2002. An unfortunate incident in 2003, involving a senior officer's family, led to allegations of his medical category being intentionally and mala fide reduced by a Medical Board that included the said senior officer. Furthermore, departmental proceedings against him for alleged tampering with an electric meter were later withdrawn.

In 2004, a detailed medical examination diagnosed him with "Bipolar Affective Disorder," and he was advised light duties. Subsequent Medical Boards consistently reiterated this diagnosis, leading to his declaration as "Unfit" for further service in 2011. A Review Medical Board upheld these findings, resulting in his retirement from the BSF on December 31, 2011, with only pensionary benefits.

The Legal Challenge: Attributability of Disability

The petitioner's central argument was that since he was medically fit at the time of joining the BSF, any subsequent deterioration in his health or disability should be presumed to be due to his service and the associated stress. He contended that he was therefore entitled to a disability pension, as his invalidation stemmed from a disability attributable to or aggravated by service in a non-battle casualty. The Medical Board, he argued, failed to provide adequate reasons for denying the disability pension.

Conversely, the respondents challenged the petition's maintainability on grounds of territorial jurisdiction and delay. However, the court dismissed these objections, citing the principle of "continuing wrong" in pension-related matters and acknowledging that a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi due to the respondent's headquarters being located there.

The Court's Scrutiny and Ruling:

The court meticulously examined the case, noting that the order of retirement by the BSF Commandant merely acknowledged the Medical Board's findings of unfitness but did not address whether the petitioner's low medical condition was attributable to or aggravated by his service.

Crucially, the court emphasized that while the Medical Board's opinion as an expert body holds weight, it is incumbent upon them to provide justification for denying disability pension. In this instance, the Medical Board simply declared the petitioner "Unfit" without establishing a causal link between his disability and his service conditions.

The court noted the undisputed facts: the petitioner suffered from "Bipolar Affective Disorder" since 2004, was assigned a 65% disability, and was medically fit at the time of his enrolment. It highlighted that the Review Medical Board had opined the disability developed "under circumstances over which he had no control" and that he had no significant past or family medical history. Despite this, the Board failed to ascertain the cause of the disease, especially when acknowledging the circumstances beyond his control.

Referring to Rule 2 of the Guidelines for Conceding Attributability of Disablement or Death to Government Service, the court underscored that the benefit of reasonable doubt must be given to the claimant, particularly in field service cases. It further referenced Schedule 1-A of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, which includes "Psychosis and Psychoneurosis" as diseases that can be contracted or developed during service. The court specifically cited judicial precedent establishing that "Bipolar Affective Disorder" falls under "Psychosis" for the purpose of these rules.

Ultimately, the court concluded that in the absence of specific reasons from the Medical Board regarding the attributability or aggravation of the petitioner's disability, and given that the ailment arose during his service, the disability must be treated as a result of his service conditions.

Consequently, the court directed the respondents to grant disability pension to the petitioner, rounding his 65% disability to 75%, and to release the pensionary benefits within two months with interest at 6% per annum.

This judgment reinforces the principle that when a service member acquires a disability during their tenure, and the Medical Board fails to provide specific reasons against its service attributability, the benefit of doubt should lean in favor of the personnel. It serves as a significant reminder of the onus on authorities to provide clear justifications when denying disability benefits to those who have served the nation.