Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court directed the Union of India and its authorities to grant the petitioner disability pension at a composite disability assessment of 50%. It awarded interest at 8% per annum on arrears and directed that the pensionary benefits be released within two months. The court emphasized that both disabilities, developed during service, were attributable to the petitioner’s employment conditions and set aside the respondents’ orders rejecting his claim for disability pension.
Facts of the Case:
- Service Details: The petitioner served in the Indian Coast Guard as an Uttam Navik (ME) from 2002 until his invalidation in 2013 due to medical conditions.
- Medical Conditions:
- First Disability: Recurrent Depressive Disorder (40% disability), developed in 2009.
- Second Disability: Prolapsed Intervertebral Disc (20% disability), developed in 2006.
- Combined, the disabilities were assessed at a composite 50% by the Medical Board.
- Medical Board Proceedings:
- The first disability was deemed neither attributable to nor aggravated by service.
- The second disability was considered attributable to service conditions.
- Pension Grant:
- Following invalidation, the petitioner was granted Invalid Pension under Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
- His claim for Disability Pension, recommended by the Medical Board, was rejected, prompting him to file a writ petition.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner’s first disability (Recurrent Depressive Disorder) should be considered attributable to or aggravated by service conditions.
- Whether the composite disability percentage of 50% should be rounded off to 75% for computation of disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules (CCS (EOP) Rules).
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- Presumption of Fitness at Recruitment:
- The petitioner argued that he was medically and physically fit at the time of recruitment in 2002, with no pre-existing conditions noted.
- Both disabilities developed during service, entitling him to disability pension.
- Stress and Strain of Service:
- Stressful working conditions, including deployment in hard areas like Port Blair, directly contributed to his first disability.
- The first disability should also be considered attributable to service under the guidelines of the CCS (EOP) Rules.
- Rounding Off of Disability Percentage:
- Disability assessments above 50% should be rounded off to 75% for pension computation, as per CCS (EOP) Rules.
- Delay and Laches:
- The petitioner argued that his claim could not be rejected for delay since pension claims involve a continuing cause of action, citing precedents.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Medical Board Opinion:
- The Medical Board concluded that the petitioner’s first disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service.
- The petitioner was invalidated due to the first disability alone, making him ineligible for disability pension under Rule 3-A of the CCS (EOP) Rules.
- Invalid Pension Already Granted:
- The petitioner was already receiving Invalid Pension, which is awarded for disabilities unrelated to service.
- Delay in Filing:
- The respondents argued that the petitioner’s claim suffered from delay and laches, as he approached the court five years after his invalidation.
- No Rounding Off:
- Since the Medical Board assessed the disability at exactly 50%, it could not be rounded off to 75%.
Analysis of the Law:
- Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules:
- Rule 3-A states that a disability is attributable to service if it arises during service or is aggravated by service conditions.
- If no disability is noted at recruitment, it is presumed service-related unless robust evidence proves otherwise.
- Precedents:
- Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India: Disabilities arising during service, without pre-existing conditions at recruitment, are presumed attributable to service.
- Union of India v. Tarsem Singh: Pension claims involving continuing wrongs are not barred by delay, as each monthly denial constitutes a fresh cause of action.
- Composite Disability:
- Disability pension is computed based on composite disability assessments. However, rounding off applies only to disabilities assessed above 50%.
Precedent Analysis:
- The court relied on Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, which shifts the burden of proof to the employer to demonstrate that a disability is unrelated to service.
- It also cited Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, emphasizing that pension claims are not barred by delay due to their recurring nature.
Court’s Reasoning:
- Attributability of Disabilities:
- The court noted that neither disability was recorded at recruitment.
- The first disability was diagnosed after six years of service, with no family or prior medical history, supporting the presumption of service-related causation.
- The second disability was already deemed service-attributable by the Medical Board.
- Medical Board’s Recommendation:
- The Medical Board had recommended disability pension for the second disability. The court found no valid reason for the respondents to ignore this recommendation.
- Failure of Respondents:
- The respondents failed to prove that the first disability was unrelated to service or aggravated by it, as required under Rule 3-A of the CCS (EOP) Rules.
- Rounding Off of Disability:
- Since the composite disability was exactly 50%, the court held that it could not be rounded off to 75%, per the CCS (EOP) Rules.
- Delay and Laches:
- The court rejected the argument of delay, holding that pension claims constitute a continuing wrong, with fresh causes of action arising each month.
Conclusion:
- Both disabilities were deemed attributable to service conditions.
- The petitioner is entitled to disability pension based on the 50% composite assessment, but it could not be rounded off to 75%.
- The court awarded 8% interest per annum on arrears.
Implications:
- Reinforcement of Service-Related Presumption:
- Disabilities developed during service are presumed service-related unless proven otherwise.
- Guidance for Military Personnel:
- This judgment clarifies the applicability of rounding off rules and underscores the importance of proper Medical Board assessments.
- Continuing Cause of Action in Pension Claims:
- The ruling affirms that pension denials constitute recurring wrongs, allowing claims despite delays.