Delhi High Court
Neeraj Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 July, 2017
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 23.05.2017
% Pronounced on: 14.07.2017
+ W.P.(C) 2203/2015
NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Mohan Kumar and
Ms.Rashmi Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Barkha Babbar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner prays for issuance
of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay
50% disability pension with effect from 8.6.2013 along with interest
thereon.
2. The facts leading to the present petition, in a nut shell, are that
the petitioner was enrolled in the Border Security Force (BSF) as a
Constable on 15.04.2011 and after completion of basic recruit training
WP(C) No.2203/2015 Page 1
(BRT) from Subsidiary Training Centre (STC) at BSF Kharkan Camp,
he had reported to 69 Bn, BSF on 24.02.2012.
3. Due to certain action of the petitioner, he was sent to Frontier
Hospital, BSF, Malda. He was subsequently produced before Initial
Medical Board at Patiram, West Bengal on 07.03.2013.
4. The Medical Board in its report dated 07.3.2013 declared him
as suffering from "RHD with Severe AR with Mild MR" and declared
him unfit for further service in BSF. The opinion given in answer of
question Nos.2,3,4,6 and 8 of the report are relevant for the purpose of
the present petition and are reproduced hereinbelow:
"2. Was the disability contracted in service? Yes.
3. Was it contracted in circumstances over which he
had no control? Yes.
4. Is it directly attributed to condition service? No
6. If not directly attributed to service, was it
aggravated thereby & if so by what specific condition?
Yes, due to stress and strain.
8. Percentage of disability. 50%"
5. The petitioner was thereafter produced before the Review
Medical Board on 26.04.2013 and the opinion given on question
No.2,3,4,6 and 8 are relevant for the purpose of present petition and
are extracted below:
WP(C) No.2203/2015 Page 2
2. Was the disability contracted in service? Yes
3. Was it contracted in circumstances over which he
had no control? Yes
4. Is it directly attributed to condition of service?
No
6. If no directly attributable to service, was it
aggravated there by and if so by what specific
condition? Yes, due to stress and strain.
8. Percentage of disability. 50%"
6. Based on the above report, the petitioner was retired from
service on ground of physical unfitness with effect from 07.06.2013.
7. The petitioner filed a writ petition, being WP(C) 5812/2013,
before this Court for sanction and payment of 50% disability pension
with effect from 08.06.2013. During the pendency of the above
petition, the respondents reinstated the petitioner in service vide order
dated 28.02.2014 and the said petition was disposed of vide order
dated 28.08.2014 in view of the above reinstatement.
8. The petitioner on rejoining, was again medically examined by
the Medical Board on 23.06.2014. This time around the opinion
expressed by the Board on question Nos.2 and 6 are relevant and are
reproduced herein below:
"2. Was the disability contracted in service : No
WP(C) No.2203/2015 Page 3
6. If not directly attributable to service, was it
aggravated by thereby and if so, by what specific
conditions: :Stress and strain."
9. The petitioner was thereafter produced before a Review Board
on 18.12.2014, whose opinion on question Nos.2,3,4 and 6 are
reproduced herein below:-
"2. Was the disability contracted in service: Yes
3. Was it contracted in circumstances over which he
had no control: Yes
4. Is it directly attributable to conditions of service:
No
6. If no directly attributed to service was it
aggravated thereby and if so, by what specific conditions:
Yes, due to stress and strain."
10. Based on the above report, the petitioner was retired from the
service on ground of physical unfitness with effect from 20.12.2014.
However, as disability pension was not granted to him, he has filed the
present petition seeking the above mentioned relief.
11. The respondents in its counter affidavit have stated that as the
petitioner had not completed 10 years of qualifying service and his
disability was due to natural causes not attributable to government
services, he was covered in Category A of the circular dated
29.07.2010 and was, therefore, not entitled to the disability pension.
WP(C) No.2203/2015 Page 4
12. Circular dated 29.07.2010, for determining the compensation
payable for death or disability under different circumstances,
categorizes employees into five distinct categories. Category A and B
of the same are relevant for the purpose of the present petition and are
reproduced herein below:
"For determining the compensation payable for death or
disability under different circumstances, the cases are
broadly categorized in five distinct categories which are
as under:
Category 'A': Death or disability due to natural
causes not attributable to Government service. Example
would be chronic ailments like heart and renal diseases,
prolonged illness, accidents while not on duty etc.
Category 'B': Death or disability due to causes
which are accepted as attributable to government
services or aggravated by Government service. Diseases
contracted because of continued exposure to a hostile
work, environment, subjected to extreme weather
conditions or occupational hazards resulting in death or
disability would be examples."
13. A bare reading of the above category(s) would show that
distinction is drawn between disability due to natural causes and
disability due to causes "attributable to government services" or
"aggravated by the government services". In latter cases, disability
Pension in terms of Clause V of the said circular would be payable.
WP(C) No.2203/2015 Page 5
14. As has been extracted above, baring the report dated
23.06.2014, all other medical reports have affirmed that the disability
was contracted in service and was aggravated thereby.
15. The reliance of the respondents on the answer given to question
4 in these reports is unfounded as we found that question 4 is wrongly
framed. It seeks an opinion of whether the medical condition is
"directly" attributable to condition of service. Category B in the
circular dated 29.07.2010 does not used the word "directly" and
would, therefore, cover cases other than where the disability is caused
by reasons attributable to government services, or when aggravated by
government service, i.e. having causal nexus with the government
service.
16. The expression "attributable to" is of significance and when
read with the expression "aggravated by government service",
discloses the legislative intent that the expression "attributable to" is
not to be read in a restrictive manner or given a narrow meaning.
17. The expression "attributable to" has been interpreted under the
Income Tax Act, 1961 as a word of wider connotation than "derived
from". The expression "attributable to" implies that "for a result to be
attributable to anything it must be wholly, or in material part, caused
by it". In India Leather Corporation (P) Ltd. Commissioner of
Income Tax, (1997) 10 SCC 115 referring to Stroud's Dictionary, 5 th
Edition, Vol.I, page 223, it was held that causal connection, which is
sufficiently proximate, is necessary. The causal connection need not
be absolutely direct. Such direct evidence may be impossible to get in
WP(C) No.2203/2015 Page 6
case of disability or death. It should be sufficiently plausible. What is
to be ruled out is whether the disability or death was due to natural
causes and covered by category A. Therefore and thus importance of
opinion given by the experts in the field i.e. doctors, carries weight
and of significant importance.
18. In the present case, the medical reports had clearly opined that
the disability was contracted in service and even though not directly
attributable to service, was aggravated thereby. There is no record or
material to show that the petitioner was suffering from the said
disability at the time of his appointment or that the same could not
have been detected at the time of his appointment.
19. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is
entitled to grant of disability pension in terms of the circular dated
29.07.2010 with effect from his retirement on 20.12.2014. The
respondents would quantify the amount and pay the same within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of this order/judgment.
The petition is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA
(JUDGE)
SANJIV KHANNA
(JUDGE)
JULY 14, 2017
vp
WP(C) No.2203/2015 Page 7
