Delhi High Court
Ex-Constable Virender Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 August, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16812/2022
EX-CONSTABLE VIRENDER SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Virender Singh Tomar,
Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Subhash Tanwar (CGSC),
Mr. Naveen, Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Mr.
Harshit Deshwal, Advs. with Mr. Devender
Singh (Dy. JAG)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
ORDER(ORAL)
% 25.08.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. It is a matter of concern that the petitioner, despite having an
opinion by the Medical Board in his favour, specifically stating that
the disability (Trivial Mitral Regurgitation) from which he was found
to suffer, 13 years after he had joined the respondent ITBP, has had to
struggle for 3 years for his due entitlement to disability pension.
2. The law as regards disability pension is well settled. We have
had an occasion to examine the entire legal position recently in our
decision in UOI v Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso1. Subsequently, the said
2025 SCC Online Del 2018
W.P.(C) 16812/2022
10:04:35
decision has been followed by a coordinate bench in UOI v Balbir
Singh2. The Supreme Court has also, in his decision in Bijender
Singh v UOI3, specifically upheld the entitlement of persons who are
found to suffer from disabilities many years after they joined service,
and regarding whom there is no record of disability at the time when
they joined, to disability pension.
3. Moreover, in the present case, there is an opinion by the
Medical Board which specifically states that the disability from which
the petitioner was found to be suffering was "due to stress and strain
of service".
4. Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC who appears for the UOI does not
have any submission to advance on the aspect of disability except to
state that the petitioner had not been posted to any high altitude area
and had not been complaining of any symptoms. We are surprised at
this submission, which is in the teeth of the opinion of the Medical
Board.
5. We are also constrained to observe, with some discomfiture,
that arguments were sought to be advanced on the aspect of delay in
filing the writ petition, oblivious of the fact that, on 8 December 2022
itself, the delay stands condoned by this Court by allowing CM APPL.
53123/2022, which has not been challenged till date.
6. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner
Judgment dated 1 July 2025 in WP (C) 140/2024
2025 SCC OnLine SC 895
W.P.(C) 16812/2022
10:04:35
is directed to be dispensed disability pension which would be
computed from the date of his claim for disability pension with
interest thereon, at the rate of 9 % per annum, computed from the said
date.
7. The said amounts are directed to be disbursed to the petitioner
positively within two weeks from today and the compliance report in
that regard be filed with the Registry of this Court.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
AUGUST 25, 2025/ng
W.P.(C) 16812/2022
10:04:35
